I saw the G-->D and G --> R, the issue is that the conclusion is saying D-->R, and we only know that D(/)--> G(/), NOT anything about D-->R, or D-->G.

"this is actually an OK argument"

crosses it off

Physicist left the chat

Thank you Homo Puppies, this is helpful

exactly! But that took so long for me to realize in my blind review. Anytime I get caught up in a crazy assumption, I need to accept it's POE time, because C is as you said the most supported, obviously, once you measure support for the other choices. 1/2 supported is stronger than most weak/no support, or maybe plausible.

Conclusion: Yet, scientists have recently discovered a new way by which the plant can absorb phosphorus, a much-needed nutrient.

Premise: Wheat that grows near deserts has been observed to extract phosphorus directly from the dust covering its leaves.

So.. how I'm thinking about it is... In order to be an argument, the premise must support the conclusion. Based off the # or obvious-ness of the "assumptions," you can determine the strength of the argument--"valid" being the strongest.

The premise supports the conclusion if you assume that the same "Scientists" in the conclusion were there to discover the "Premise" and were the people who "observed" the dust covering the leaves.

That's a pretty big assumption in my mind, but if you assume it, then the premise supports the conclusion.