The question gives you an initial claim as well as a principle to go with it. The stem asks for you to pick an AC that could be appropriately used as a premise for an argument that uses the principle in the stimulus. I see this as more of a pseudo- ...
... for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two ... keets993
"It mistakes a correlation between the type of brain ... infers a cause from a correlation"
So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals ...
**This seems to be a recurring theme in several LR questions, so perhaps worth considering.** When attacking a support (premise to conclusion) in an argument, isn't the use of "*some*" i.e. other cases or situations, irrelevant ...
... . The first sentence introduces a correlation: gesture less :dbl: articulate what ... , even some people describe the correlation differently than others, their description ... still falls within the correlation. So this correlation still exists.
I seem to be confused on which questions types to expect Alternative-Reversal-Coincidence answer choices when dealing with a causal argument. Is this exclusive to Strengthen-Weaken questions? Thanks in advance for any help on this.