I believe it may be because causal arguments try to connect the stated correlations together to have a strong relationship. The stimulus argues against the causal argument that the two correlating factors (decline NGOs and increase Govt services) have a strong correlation between each other. The stimulus or Editorial argues that this is not the case, and presents a differing explanation.

#help

Q2: Every planetary society will be endangered by impacts from space.

As we know every is part of group one so the next few words or MC1 presented after is the sufficient condition.

MC1: planetary society (PS)

MC2: endangered by impacts from space (EIFS)

PS --> EIFS

/EIFS --> /PS

I like to think that MC2 is the predicate and MC1 is the subject in this case. Because 'endangered' goes with the second half of the sentence, and it does not belong with the subject portion. The 'will be' presents a condition if the impacts from space follows through. So we are comparing the planetary society if the impacts from space endanger it. Does this kinda help?

So because they did not mark Kumar for being late despite 17mins after the last bell, we cannot conclude that he is marked late? If it does not tell us that final part do we just train ourselves to not make an inference about it?

BTW your explanation was really good I just wanted to know if this is kinda how you are also mapping it out?

I think that the "failing to provide" is just describing the schools that we are talking so it is the modifier in this case since it adds detail to the subject (Schools).

My thought process was this -- modifiers will add details or for lack of better word context for what is being told to us.

Q3: Early twentieth century physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes.

"Early twentieth century" is giving us a description of what kind of physicists that we are talking about in the sentence. Since there is an emphasis on the type of physicist, I know that Physicist itself is important in this particular sentence.

Now what were the physicist doing? They were puzzled -- but I can see where you believe adding the existence of the black holes is beneficial, but remember kernels are simply boiling down to the detail devoid sentence. The addition of black holes is additional detail that explains what the physicists were puzzled about. Thus the kernel is meant to be devoid of the modifiers that add additional detail.

Kernel: Physicists were puzzled.

For Q4, the "territories" are being explained by "of America by acquiring the Louisiana Purchase" I know that territories being further explained means its crucial to the kernel itself. So it has to be in the kernel. The description of Thomas Jefferson's presidency also tells me that TJ is important in this kernel. So that is how I got: Thomas Jefferson expanded the territories. (expanded is in there because we need that verb for the predicate).

Q5 is very similar. William Shakespeare is being described through his writings, and is further described through the era he wrote about. William Shakespeare is the subject, "captured the spirit" is the essence of the entire sentence, and everything else is an additional detail (the why and how -- details). Because of such, I got the kernel: William Shakespeare captured the spirit.

Please let me know if this makes sense!