Anthony claims that using marijuana leads to heroin use, because a large majority of heroin users also have a history of marijuana use. Judith replies to this argument, concluding that Anthony's evidence doesn't support his conclusion, even if the conclusion itself could be true. Judith supports this by suggesting an analogous argument: all heroin users have a history of drinking water, so why not conclude that drinking water leads to heroin use?

By drawing this analogy to a clearly ridiculous argument, Judith reveals a significant problem with Anthony's argument. Just saying that many heroin users have participated in another behavior, without additional evidence about how common that behavior is among non-heroin-users, doesn't actually support a causal relationship with heroin use. Based on Anthony's evidence, it's equally possible that marijuana use is just very popular among both heroin users and non-heroin-users.

The answer choices will likely use abstract language, so it will be useful to make that language concrete to understand whether it actually describes Judith's reasoning. For example, if an answer choice says Judith "suggests an analogous argument," we should be able to identify the specific analogous argument in question. If an answer choice doesn't link back to concrete parts of Judith's argument, it might be incorrect. This can also be easier to test if we break each answer choice into parts, and check each part.

We should also keep in mind that incorrect answer choices will all have some inaccuracy, while the correct answer will not be inaccurate at all. So if an answer choice says something inaccurate, we can eliminate. The correct answer might describe only one facet of Judith's reasoning, or may approach it in an unintuitive way, but it will never be inaccurate.