A. The argument is not making a comparative claim between small and large fish and the effect of algae on them

B. The answer fails to point to the reasoning flaw in the argument. The argument is saying that algae is the cause of death in THEIR pond not in general.

C. Wrong for the same reason as B. Does not point to the reasoning flaw in the argument

D. Correct because it points to the reasoning flaw. Correlation vs Causation and provides an alt hypo

E. Supports the argument by strengthening the relationship between algae and fish deaths

You're probably just overthinking it. Just focus on your fundamentals of breaking down the stimulus and don't get tripped up by obvious answers. You might have developed some bad habits in answering hard questions instead of understanding them fully. Easy questions are designed to test your fundamentals so if you are having trouble on them than maybe go back and study what makes each question type and approach unique.

Answer choice C lays outside the scope of the doctors argument since the argument is only about herbal medicines and their safety. If C had said that HERBAL medicines cause allergic reactions in people then it would have weekend the argument. I got duped by this because I assumed that C was within scope without really thinking too hard about it. An answer choice can't weaken the argument if its not even addressing the argument!

I found that what helped the most is to do the SA section in the core and then go back to foundations and redo conditional and casual logic

Last name only keeps author id more anonymous to prevent discrimination. There is also a culture of caring about the advancement of scholarly knowledge rather than the advancement of personal glory. Weird academic culture thing that occurs in some, but not all, academic spaces.