Oh my goodness I am so sad I missed this again. I missed it the first time as I waited until Friday so I could have a later date. I was studying yesterday too and I didn’t see this. Is there anything that can be done 🥲

When we are looking to strengthen the reasoning in the argument, there are two main ways we can do so: either by eliminating an alternative explanation that is making our conclusion less plausible, or by choosing an answer choice that adds to the plausibility of the author’s hypothesis and makes it more believable. In this question, the author takes a correlation between the amount of iron consumed and the likelihood of Parkinson’s disease and concludes that eating less high iron foods will reduce one’s chances of getting Parkinson’s. AC A helps eliminate an alternate explanation for this correlation by removing the idea that genetics plays a part in the likelihood of getting Parkinson’s. AC A says that both people with and without a genetic tendency for Parkinson’s have the same diets (and same iron). So this rules out an alternative explanation and makes it more likely that the author’s hypothesis is true. So it strengthens the argument.

TLDR: What if your genetics actually cause Parkinson’s, not how much iron you eat? AC A rules that out, making the conclusion more plausible.

@TristinTaylor Unless is Group 3 Negate Sufficient, so you can pick either term, negate it, and put it as a sufficient term. Since we have "farmers in the region will NOT grow green-manure crops", we can negate that to "farmers in the region WILL grow green-manure crops". So Grow -> Abandon. Contrapositive is /Abandon -> /Grow. If the farmers do not abandon the use of chemical fertilizers they will not grow green manure crops.

me!