Is the term "general" indicating the majority? Why or why not?

The phrase "almost all" leaves some out; therefore, can we say this is a general representative? I believe the answer is yes, as it refers to the majority, which makes it a general representative. However, I'm not entirely sure if my thought process is correct.

Regarding my reasoning for Option C being incorrect:

Option C states it is a hypothetical and concession context indicator (i.e., "even if"). This option doesn’t really weaken the statement; rather, it could still hold true and, if anything, strengthen the statement, which is the opposite of what the question asks.

I selected Option D. I am still trying to understand why I didn’t consider that we could make it even better and more motivating. Does my response suggest that I haven’t fully understood the question, or does it reveal something about my thought process?

I selected Option D: I am still trying to understand. Why didn’t I consider that we could make it even better and more motivating? Does my response suggest that I haven’t completely understood the question, or does it reveal something about my thought process?

For question 2: could we just not say, the otherwise is referencing the president? As acting in the best interest of the nation is embedded in the subset of the president. I just want to make sure my thinking process is correct.

Similar to question 3: is which reference to the entire clause, therefore increase in Magpies or just magpies? If it is not correct, how should I consider, and discern when is it only referencing to noun and when is it referencing to the entire clause?

For Question 3: Should we consider "those that" as separate referential terms? "Those" refers to economics, while "that" refers to the entire clause.

Does "that" serve as a modifier? If so, I find it challenging to differentiate between referencing and modifiers in terms like "that," "those," and "these."

Also, is it safe to say that anytime the phrase "this or that,...." starts a sentence is a reference to the entire clause unless it is very specific?

We had to understand that “not all Xs are Y” means the same thing as “some Xs are not Y.”

Can we say that not all also indicate some Xs are Ys in addition to “some Xs are not Y.”?

For question 2: If regular was not mentioned then it would leave a gap in time consuming? Is this correct? Because we are assuming that it is regular gardening that is why it is time-consuming.

Can you clarify that confusion and assumption like that in the wording and how it increases the relationship support between context and argument?

For Q4: Is It (referencing the IT infrastructure or upgrade) is necessary to incorporate other security strategies before we roll out the new systems?

Just to clarify: Is question 5: (But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution) not considered a major premise?

Or can we consider this as an initial premise if we put the structures of the paragraph in order?

For question 5: logically and reasonably the sentence after the conclusion indicator doesn't seem to be a conclusion. For some reason, I also thought that this question could be considered a factual statement.

Can you please provide a clarification on these two concepts: argument vs factual claim and how to distinguish?

I assume that there will be conclusion indicators and 100% premise indicators in factual statements. How to discern between the two?

#help, for the answer choice A: you mentioned if the passage indicated some toxin production is genetically controlled, then we could choose Option A. How can some be supporting "all," wouldn't this be an assumption, as we don't if it is all because some could represent a subset.

Sure I am down! I am more like a lone wolf, but if anyone is down to teaching each other. Please hit me up? Or we can make a group chat on WhatsApp, have everyone and ask each other for help when we need it?