Hilarious how I got most of the others wrong but got this right.

I think the explanation kind of over complicates it. An easier way would be:

Stimulus Analysis:

Premise: In a situation where more of certain type of people (students) are there more of something is given out (tickets) than when they are not there.

Conclusion: Thus, most of the thing (tickets) being given out is given out to the people (students) that are there when more is given out.

Flaw: Just because it happens when the people are there does not mean they are the ones getting the thing. Also more is not equal to most.

Answer choice E Analysis:

Premise: In a situations where more of a certain type of people (other children) are there more of something (snacks) is given out than usual.

Conclusion: Thus, most of the thing (snacks) being given out is given out to the people (others children) that are there when more is given out.

Flaw: Just because it happens when the people are there does not mean they are the ones getting the thing. Also more is not equal to most.

Thus the premises match up so do the conclusions and the flaws.

I think an easy way of understanding it is the negation test.

Anyone is equivalent to all. Negation of all in logic is some. Now apply that to A and see of to kills the support of the stem.

A trick that really helped me here is the perspective that properly drawn means that the logic has to make the argument valid making the answer need a perfect logical conversion. Therefore any AC that has the word "usual" does not follow logically because it does not create complete validity. Is that fair?

In the range do lmk how to join

So I think a particular way of looking at support from all that has been learnt until here would be to think:

In a world wherein the premise given how reasonable the assumptions are true the conclusion is likely to be true.

In a similar manner a strong argument becomes a set of claims wherein the claim that is the preface, given reasonable assumptions, supports another claim which is the conclusion.

Does this make sense?

The simplest way to think about this is that, to weaken the editor's argument, you can challenge the editor's logic.

The editor weakens the argument by saying that the same amount of trash will be picked up. Less time or increased efficiency does nothing to counter this, but making pickups easier would mean collecting more trash. Thus, it weakens the editor's argument.

So you are not really attacking the premise but the logic of the premise by showing an alternate aspect that may increase the recyclables collected (something the argument overlooks).

First off #feedback this needs to be a video, it complicatd while reading but way simpler if you hear it or say it out loud.

Anyway a simple way to look at it is:

1st frame work:

Step 1: Use rules until now to frame conditional relationship in Lawgic

Step 2: See if exception applies in the result you want

Step 3: If exception applies conditional from step 1 no longer applies, if not an exception conditional applies

2nd Frame work:

Step 1: Frame conditional in logic including the exceptional rule, which comes under the sufficient side of things

Step 2: Bring the sufficient condition in the middle to the left

We do this because being not being an exception plus the sufficient contain together forms the entirety make it sufficient for the condition to take place

Step 3: Check whether exception applies or not

Step 4: If not exception conditional in step two applies if exception it does not

3rd frame work:

Step 1: Kick up not having exception to domain

Step 2: Frame conditional as in step 1 of framework 1

Step 3: If not an exception you are under the domain so conditional applies if an exception you are not under the domain so rule does not apply

I think the easiest way to understand this and how I got it right was to focus on the flaw. The flaw is that it draws a conclusion on the basis of accepting one claim while not accepting another without reasoning which is also the flaw in A.

#feedback

Now I'm not sure if I'm understanding this wrong or if what I'm going to sight is right but-

Does the statement "only if they arrive more than five minutes late" imply that the necessary condition for a citation is arriving more than 5 minutes late?

Let me explain what I mean:

Do the words "more than" not make it a necessity to come 5 minutes late or more ( 5 minutes to infinity) the necessary condition for getting a citation?

What you are stating as the necessity condition would make sense if the clause read "only if they arrive five minutes late"

Does the addition of 'more than' not make coming 17 minutes late a trigger for the necessary condition?

I think the a more reasonable explanation of why A is wrong would be that it states wolves discourage other predators from moving into the area this implies that these preceptors were not already there. In the case of A the effect it brings in therefore bring in no effect at all, if these predators were already not there then the wolves preventing them from coming makes no difference. At the same time the fact that C prevents disease that would have killed a larger number and in the process only kill those that would have dies anyway gives us an apt answer to why despite wolves killing there is growth.