I'm having some trouble understanding why A and E would not also weaken the argument. I see that B weakens the main conclusion, but the video stated you can also weaken an argument by breaking down the reasoning between the premise and the sub-conclusion. I don’t understand how A and E don’t present alternative hypotheses:

• A: If French men and women drink the same amount of wine, but men still have higher rates of heart disease, then something besides wine must be influencing the outcome.

• E: If regions with less wine consumption than North America have even lower rates of heart disease than France, then wine cannot be the factor explaining France’s results.

I would love some help. Thank you!

If the line "consumers are buying more durable goods than before" is the minor premise, wouldn't it not be primary support? And primary support would be this line "they expect economic growth in the near future"? Also, doesn't the argument rely on the line "consumers are buying more durable goods than before" making it's truth necessary to keep the argument alive?

Hi, I’m confused about why “some” is given as the reason D doesn’t weaken. I thought the bigger issue was “each group.” Since all groups were observed in those exciting contexts, the relative comparison remains intact. Even if the quantifier changed, wouldn’t the “each group” part still neutralize the effect? The explanation I read said that if it weren’t for the word “some,” D would be a strong weakener, but I don’t see how. Thanks for the help.

In this sentence

“NGF, which is necessary for the survival and proper functioning of nerve cells, was discovered by Levi-Montalcini in a series of experiments using the technique of tissue culture, which she devised in the 1940s.”

I’m confused about what “which” refers to at the end. Could it mean the experiments, or the technique of tissue culture? How do you determine which one is correct?

Hi, I'm having some trouble in understanding why B is not a good weaking answer choice. E is saying that there is a difference between BWR’s anthology and an anthology made by the patron’s magazine. I don't see how B isn't doing the same thing. Isn't it also pointing out that the poems are not the same in the two? Thanks.

Hi, I know that they mentioned in the video that answer choice C flips the conditional claim at the end. But if you negate it, isn't that exactly what would happen?

You would need C to say "If you are hired as an editor, then you probably won't be sympathetic to farms."

The AC, negated, would show the same thing. Would you need it written the same way in the stimulus? I thought negations did not matter bc only the reasoning does.

For A, it says the results of the experiments. I overlooked it because they don't care about what the results of the experiments were, only the radioactive side effects from it. Doesn't that create a problem? Would love some help understanding this. Thanks :)