@sarbear23 in other words, answer A strips the genetics correlation and proves its invalid, which strengthens the authors reasoning

@petvma it took me a second to understand this. the authors argument is already flawed because it denies alternative reasons for the correlation. we are basically trying to prove he is correct in his flawed reasoning. genetics is a valid third correlation between the iron intake and disease, therefore it would weaken his reasoning. Answer A takes that valid genetics reasoning and provides invalidity, thus strengthening the authors argument. i know that prob doesn't make much sense i'm still trying to grasp it myself im sorry!!

the answer to question 4 makes no sense to me. is it because it is an absolute claim? like are we just supposed to take the "no statistical evidence" as 100% true? i don't understand how acting selfishly is the winner.

Q5 tripped me up. I forgot that "But" statements can simply just be transitioning to the argument and could be a sub-conclusion/major premise

wow this one was tough