My strategy was the same. In the last lesson, he mentioned the 'strength' of the words matching ('noise may impair hearing' matches 'engine noises can impair hearing'). So I ruled out A because 'only' is a strong word and it didn't seem as though any of the support claims backed that up with similar strength. My thought was like, "well ok, they may have enough resources to give priority to endemic species and still raise some awareness about other endangered species, so 'only' seems too narrow and unsupported".

Long story short- matching the strength of the words in the support claims to the conclusion has helped me eliminate conclusions that the support wouldn't be strong enough for. (i.e. Engine noises may cause hearing loss doesn't give strong enough support to "engine noise definitely impairs the whales' ability to communicate")

Hopefully that wasn't too much word vomit and is actually helpful. Obviously, don't take this as always true- it's def over/under conclusive at times.

Will you tag me too if you find one please!! :)))

Question 9.3 said that neither of the statements is a premise or a conclusion, but rather they are both background information. Would it be an argument if it said "Before the increase in fuel prices, people with average incomes could afford to drive their cars frequently for leisure activities. Reports show that fewer people with average incomes partook in leisure activities soon after the price of fuel rose. Thus, the rise in fuel prices has now made it too costly for them to engage in such activities."?

Then, the premises would be: "Reports show that fewer people with average incomes partook in leisure activities soon after the price of fuel rose." and "Before the increase in fuel prices, people with average incomes could afford to drive their cars frequently for leisure activities."

The conclusion would be: "Thus, the rise in fuel prices has now made it too costly for them to engage in such activities."

Is this correct?

What if someone doesn't know an assumption to be true/false? In this example, it is pretty much common knowledge that tigers are mammals. In a more niche situation, how would that complicate one's ability to determine assumptions and possible strengths/weaknesses?