this is crazy

It means "attacking the source" essentially. So in this case you would be attacking either the people or the social theorist's beliefs (the sources of their theories).

Here's an example:

A scientist says that kangaroos and polar bears are related because they have a common ancestor....(imagine I continued this argument lmao)

So in this case an answer choice doing a "source attack" might look like this.

The scientist's main field of study is humans. He is not knowledgeable in kangaroos or animals.

You are ATTACKING or DISCREDITING the source (scientist) himself rather than attacking the argument (that they have a common ancestor)

I can already tell I won't be very good at these types...

In AP questions, "assumptions" refers to OUR assumptions. Assumptions made by us based on the passage.

But here, "assumptions" refers to the political scientist calling out the CRITIC'S assumptions. The political scientist is basically saying their argument is based on this assumption( a way to weaken the critics argument).

I keep doubting myself omg I just need to go with my initial answers...

I agree I hate NA

Not only is E too strong, but there's a huge sufficient-necessary confusion in the answer. With "only if", the sentence turned into a sufficient →necessary. Making "rely on quackery" the necessary phrase, when (through the premise and rule), its supposed to be the sufficient. Same with the "people doing more harm than good", its supposed to be the necessary but it is made the sufficient in that specific answer choice.

I believe this is the main reason answer choice E is wrong.

I think you're just supposed to make that logical jump that people who 'rely" on the web are "browsing" the web as well, which I feel like made sense because in what other ways would someone rely on the web?? Plus like he explained, the people "relying on the web to self diagnose" is a subset of all the people who browse the web for medical information.

@clarissacuevas1012589 said:

Lets buckle down and start studying 3-5 hrs a day.

DM me!! Let's get a little group started to keep eachother accountable.

I would also love to join! I'm taking my first one in September!

Because when there is a "no" meaning negate, you're always going to be negating the necessary condition rather than the sufficient. Making it "not independent" is negating the sufficient.

Yes! I believe so

I did the same thing! Still got the right answer but that got me.