Is there any argument to be made that the following could be considered a sub or sub sub conclusions:

it is probably within the reach of social welfare programs to create additional, secure living conditions for these children

With weakening questions, if an answer choice is simply trying to contradict the conclusion or premises in the stim is it fair to assume that it is an incorrect answer choice? Contradiction doesn't really clear the bar set by weakening questions, right?

"Where the judges are independent there will be a good legal system," trips me up a bit.

Having independent judges feels like a more necessary factor rather than a sufficient one for having a good legal system. Am I bringing in too much "outside " knowledge to this?

Trying to understand why SC is in position A and I is in position B: Can it be understood like this? —— Having the designation of SC is SUFFICIENT to ASSUME I, but having I is NECESSARY for SC?

Are we not comparing some cultivars of corn vs. other cultivars of corn and comparing them on how morphologically related they are to sorghum? The answer being some cultivars of corn are more related than the other cultivars of corn?

Are there any words or phrases that typically signal a premise or conclusion?

Would the test makers use key words as obvious as therefore, thus etc. etc. when introducing the conclusion?

Can someone explain the move from rule one to rule two? How is Comp TOB which is the necessary condition in rule one just pushed over into the sufficient condition for rule two?

Does anyone else regularly have issues with the 7sage site failing to load while watching videos? Or is this a me problem?

I now understand why B is wrong, but I'm still unclear as to why it would be a question mark for Cynthia. If the scenario laid out fails her sufficient condition regarding theoretical research, would it not be fair to conclude that she would strongly agree with the scenario's conclusion that that type of project should not receive government funding?