I’m with you. The wording was crappy on this one. I reread it three times and was still confused how the answer choice wasn’t contradicting itself but maybe i need to take a break. I was surprised this was level 3

i understand the explanation in theory but isn’t showing unrelated evidence still an “absence of evidence” for the relevant issue that the “constituents oppose a bill”? I was between B and C too and tried counter-arguing each which usually clears up my confusion but I still felt like C got more at the root of the problem that he was assuming something without sufficient reason and possibly misinterpreting what the constituents thought rather than failing to consider it… does that make sense? how can i reframe this to understand it more clearly?

The lecture at the bottom was so interesting! Makes me so excited to learn

I definitely do not have a thing for DeMorgan.

I had no idea this was a thing. Let me know if any of you are granted this. I will try as well