Subscription pricing
How could a company have no creative employees yet fulfill the condition "have creative employees"? I went with C because it questions the validity of the language "is said to have" which seems like shakier reasoning than no creative employees can have creative employees.
I still don't understand why it's A over D. If I understand it correctly, A would help to dismantle the argument that short OP is associated with predators, if most mammals have a short OP then it's not significant that predators do. But with D, we discount it because the negation DOES NOT NECESSARILY disprove the argument, as is explained in the video. But neither A nor D would refute the argument outright if their negation was true, and it seems to me that D equally dismantles the argument, if extinct animals GENERALLY have shorter OP's then the premises are just as irrelevant as if we accept that most mammals also have shorter OP's. It seems the same to me, could anyone explain where I'm going wrong?