I am having trouble accepting AC (A).

It seems, to me, that the author is simply stating that we shouldn't conclude that the spike was caused by volcanic activity, I didn't read it as though the author was saying volcanos didn't cause the spike because we have no evidence of volcanos... etc.

If the author is arguing: Volcanos didn't cause spike in atmosphere because there is no evidence of volcanos, then A works in weakening because it is essentially saying we just can't detect them therefore we can't conclude there is no volcanic activity.

If the author is arguing: We can't conclude the volcanos caused the spike then imo AC (A) doesn't weaken the argument. Instead, it supports the premise that we have not detected any volcanic activity by saying that we are unable to detect such activity therefore its appropriate to argue that we should not conclude volcanos caused the spike.

Can someone help me with this? Obviously, my reasoning is flawed given JY's explanation and the fact that AC (A) is correct.

#help

I feel like AC (A) is better explained when you take into account the premise that indicates average visits per a rep went down.

When you have more reps, of course average visits would decrease, since now any individual rep would see less physicians because they have more co-workers to lighten the load. This ultimately refutes the conclusion drawn by the author.

I wish there was a better explanation for why C is wrong.

Is PTM20 not considered pretest 90? Also, I noticed PTM20 only has 3 sections but Lawhub includes 4 (a second LR section). Is there a reason the second LR section isn't on 7sage?

Why didn't he diagram the first sentence?

Ugh I chose D because I didn't notice the shift from "light reflecting off earth" to "the heating of the atmosphere". I kind of approached this as if we were talking about the heating of the planet itself, not the atmosphere.

I hate this explanation. At the beginning JY indicates that because the stem indicates that since the two groups of families in the experiment are "similar" we should accept that everything else has been held equal or "represented equally"; such as their health, social status, demographics, etc.

So if anything I feel as though JY is strengthening the truth of the conclusion. If we accept that all other variables are equally represented between the two "similar" groups then we should accept the conclusion that its the book that is causing an increase in health which would lead to the decrease in doctors visits. Since, we are assuming the health in one group wouldn't have been significantly better than the health in the other group, they should be the same.

It seems like in order to justify the correct AC we have to assume that both the book and the better health of the group with the books were both separately a cause for the effect of visiting the doctor less. But this goes again JY's reasoning since we have no other explanation for why the health is better in one group vs the other.

Am I over thinking this or overlooking something important?

#help