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 ...
I'm struggling to note why the E choice does not also fit the bill. Since it eliminates a potential threat to the argument - and it also would weaken the argument if it were true.
... in the argument would obviously weaken it. But it seems to ... hazy spectrum b/w “greatly weaken (w/o destroying)” and “absolutely ... it. In my view [**destroy → weaken**], but the reverse is not ...
Hey y'all! This is 7Sage Tutor Aastha and I can't wait to talk to you guys at our timing and pacing webinar tonight! Come hang out with us at 9pm EST by registering with this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7GRneE9aSPyfUmnx0IyaVA