@MayaVM That's pretty much correct, the red flag is that it reverses the conditional. The form of the conditional is Elitist -> No respect for masses -> no Respect for Demo. By asserting that anyone who doesn't respect the masses is an elitist, it reverses the first part of the conditional statement, which is invalid. You can only reverse the conditional in a negation, as in Respect for the masses -> Not an elitist.

Without using conditional logic this reasoning becomes more difficult, but essentially you can think of elitists as a category of person who doesn't respect the wisdom of the masses here. The argument states that an elitist doesn't respect the masses, but it doesn't state that people who don't respect the masses are necessarily elitists. So you can think of that answer as inappropriately eliminating other categories of people who don't respect the masses. Without understanding the conditional logic, you can see how eliminating this answer would take more time, but you can arrive at the elimination eventually.

@aikol.iva So I struggled with it too but I think I came around. I believe the strengthening component of the answer is that it eliminates another route one could take to reach the conclusion about cause. In the question about small shoes, for example, the diaper argument is weakened by the fact that babies need shoes and diapers, which makes babies an alternate explanation for the phenomenon. In this case, when considering the hypothesis "iron intake causes PD," an alternate solution is "people with a predisposition to PD just happen to eat more iron, thus making the correlation non-causal." By eliminating this option, the causal hypothesis is strengthened by virtue of a competing causal hypothesis being eliminated. Hope this makes sense.