If we break down the stimulus as

For Orchid species,

Premise: Pollinated solely by insects -> Have features that attract insects.

Premise: This new specific flower attracts insects.

Conclusion: This specific flower is pollinated solely by insects.

Assumption: Having features that attract insects -> Pollinated solely by insects.

Flaw: Mistaking necessary & sufficient conditions. Just because the specific flower attracts insects, does not mean it is pollinated solely by insects.

Also the argument assumes that having this feature of attracting insects is sufficient to be pollinated solely by insects. So in D, it treats the characteristic (having features that attract insects) as if it were a characteristic only applicable to orchid species pollinated solely by insects. This means it's assuming that if it's a feature that attracts insects, it must be pollinated solely by insects. So if you're ever in the necessary condition, you're always in the sufficient condition in the first premise above.

Hope that helps!

Did anyone translate AC E like this?

/Successful -> Good Intention -> /Justified

/Successful & Good Intention -> /Justified

To me, E says that okay the natural adjustment process allows for wide fluctuations in the short term. For example sake, let's say the natural adjustment process allows for fluctuations from -100 to 100 quantity of carbon level. While the normal level is at 0 and anything above 50 is harmful to humans. So answer choice E gives us the possibility that carbon could go up way up to 95 quantity of carbon, which would be harmful and could threaten human life.

If we said the opposite of E, which is that the adjustment process does not allow for wide fluctuations in the short-term this would strengthen the argument. So if the adjustment process only allowed for fluctuations from -20 to 20, then the argument that the environmentalist should relax is strengthened.

@letsgo1st523 - hope this helps!

Hey! I'm interested!

#help

Having trouble figuring out why the 1st sentence is the main conclusion and the second sentence is the sub-conclusion. Can anyone help explain it?

Seems like it could go either way.

#help

I chose E because I was thinking the Only is a necessary indicator so this answer choice could be written as:

Theory designated as real → Object posited by explanatorily powerful theory.

Contrapositive: Not posited by explanatorily powerful theory → Theory not designated as real.

This was attractive to me because the necessary condition in the contrapositive also leads to the conclusion that this theory should not be designated as real.

But looking at the sufficient condition, not explanatorily powerful theory, it's is pretty broad. And the stimulus is just talking about if this thing is theoretical, then it is flawed. Not that if it's not explanatorily powerful, then it is flawed.

I think I was weighing the first sentence too heavily. Was thinking if it says all explanatorily powerfully explained theories of real, then if it's not an explanatorily powerfully explained theory, then it's not real. I incorrectly did a mistaken negation. B would be the better answer because the sufficient is directly related to theoretical explained theories premise.

I'm also confused as to if the first sentence is a premise? or is it just context? We know the "But" in the second sentence indicates a premise, but do we know if the first sentence is context or premise?

I'm interested!