@ Thank you for the reply! Strengthen and weaken questions can be especially tricky because sometimes its difficult to see how something supports an argument and why that support may not be good.

To help explain this, I'll go through my thought process as I read 79.1.10 to show you how I understand each sentence of the argument.

When I start reading, I note that the first premise is describing a phenomenon with a verifiable effect: More sunlight reflection means cooler global atmosphere.

Then, the next sentence tells me that some types of terrain increase this effect compared to others: Snow and ice reflect more than oceans and non-snow land.

Next, I know we're at the conclusion mainly because of the signal "Therefore." The conclusion is now telling me: Therefore, more snow and ice coverage means a greater likelihood of a cooler atmosphere.

Okay, so the argument described a phenomenon (sunlight reflection and cooling), made a comparison between two things about that phenomenon (ice and snow > non-snow land and oceans), and then concluded that if we had more of the better thing, the phenomenon would be increased.

Before going into the answer choices, it really helps to make sure that you have an idea of what you are looking for from an answer choice. For this question, I want something to make the conclusion that more snow and ice coverage will probably lead to a cooler atmosphere. That could happen through either making ice and snow seem even better (something like "ice and snow are better at reflecting sunlight than all other terrain types") or through making the other possible options seem worse (something like "land and oceans suck for reflecting sunlight" or "all other terrain types cause something to happen that makes the atmosphere warmer").

I know roughly what I want. So, let's review the options.

A : This does not help the argument. Low atmospheric temps being required for snow doesn't mean anything because I do not know anything about low atmospheric temps. They could be incredibly common or uncommon. I don't know.

B : This does not help the argument. Again, I do not know anything about these "other factors" and how they might make snow/ice better than land/ocean.

E : This does not help the argument. All it tells me is that land can vary in its ability to reflect sunlight. But we already know that no matter what ice/snow is better than land, so who cares?

D : This does not help the argument. Again, because our conclusion wants something to make snow seem better, we need something that places it on a pedestal. This does not do that because it affects all types of terrain. This answer tells me that sunlight reflection could also have a heating effect too no matter what terrain is doing the reflecting because reflecting sunlight is inevitably going to mean "passage of sunlight" through the atmosphere.

C : This does it because it makes the idea that snow and sunlight are better even more likely. It does this by giving us another reason to think that land and ocean are worse (one of the things we were looking for!)

Sorry for the incredibly long post but I wanted to showcase how I think through these questions and come together with a plan for selecting my answer choices. If you're still confused or found that my answer was lacking, feel free to ask for more help or clarification! If you want even more help with understanding arguments, I'd highly recommend the book "The Loophole" by Ellen Cassidy! It teaches this material way better than I can and covers a lot of material that I found incredibly helpful for LR.

I think the difference between D and E is that E has a different, hard-to-see flaw. E goes from evidence about improving the likelihood of "developing an interest in reading" to a conclusion that reading early on will "inspire them to read." It's like saying being prettier makes you pretty.

If the stimulus had said, "Taking an advanced math course will give you a high GPA," E would match and be the correct answer. However, the stimulus only says that it should improve your GPA. Likewise, D says that buying running shoes should increase your running frequency.

A is correct because the author assumes that eventually we'll need to move to the Moon. The argument goes from saying, "there is a growing incentive" to "we're going to have to settle on the Moon at some point." What if that incentive is just never enough?

B is incorrect because the argument does not assume that the moon is the only way of relieving overcrowding on Earth. The author specifically states, "As the human population increases and the amount of unoccupied space available for constructing houses on Earth decreases," which shows us that the author recognizes at least one other way of relieving overcrowding on Earth: constructing houses on unoccupied space. The author's conclusion then says that after we inevitably run out of resources for that strategy, we move to the Moon.

First, depending on how long you've been studying it's important to be patient with yourself. Connections can take a while to make, and it can make you feel like you keep having to relearn the same lessons over and over.

Now, as for the relationship between premises and conclusions, what exactly do you have trouble understanding? Is it certain premises where you just don't understand what they're saying? Or do you not understand how the author intends for the premise to help their conclusion? Could you also give an example of an LR question that you find difficult? If you can, just post the Test, Section, and Question numbers for the question.

First, it's really normal to have fluctuations in test scores. Fluctuations could be caused by anything from poor sleep to higher stress. Second, I would not let one data point sway you on whether your tutor is the reason for the lower score. If a scientist told you that burgers lower anxiety because a participant felt calmer after eating a burger, you'd probably (and rightly) tell them that's a bad argument.

@.e.willis03 I think what's important to remember in addition to what @ has said is that the other answer choices are not better at attacking the conclusion than the right answer.

A : Tells me that efforts now are better. Does not make the previous efforts seem not wasted.

C : Unfortunate fact. Does not make the previous efforts seem not wasted.

D : It's unfortunate that other countries don't see the connection between conservation and tourism, but that does not make the previous efforts seem not wasted.

E : Sounds like a great new program, but it does not make the previous efforts seem not wasted.

I end up overthinking these earlier questions a lot too while drilling and it helps me to remember that my answer choice does not need to be perfect. It just needs to be the best one.

Hey,

The overlap is kinda the point. On this question type, you want an answer choice that mirror's the argument's reasoning as closely as possible. So, restating a key premise is a good thing for this question type.