I think this question just confused me because it makes it clear that lobsters are not harmed by the disease...therefore, I thought humans would be eating non-diseased lobsters. What am I understanding incorrectly here? Is it kind of saying lobster have like a dormant version of this disease, and even though they might HAVE gill disease, they don't SHOW signs until a certain age?

Am I incorrect for thinking the part citing a study would be found in the correct answer? In my thought process, I thought referencing a study would be important to show how the flawed argument was using outside sources as proof. Is this the incorrect way to go about answering PF questions?

#help can someone explain what a source attack is? getting a little confused on its meaning

missing the word "new" on D killed meee :(

#help is it bad if i am not finding the right answers like the video says to do? I am getting the right answer but just kind of thinking it through in terms different than domain, etc. idk if this makes sense but will this hurt me down the line?

#help I think I am confused by the use of assumptions in these, when in other lessons we were told to not use any general knowledge/knowledge not included in the passage. Like in the ice cream one, aren't we doing a lot of assuming and guesswork? Confused.

Question 9 is throwing me because Line 50 says they "individuate persons"...is this not support for D providing individual identities? #help

this one is just crazy