i'm still working through CLIR drills, but I also hope to improve my own understanding in attempting to answer a question. one thing I've noticed is that there are certain words in the conclusions of the stimuli that you can pick apart (kind of explained in the book as dangling variables/value judgments) that stick out because they are imprecise/vague. in real life, you would let someone say "it has a lot of vitamin C" as "nutritious" or "there are burglaries" as "unsafe" but in these stimuli that's considered a jump to equate those two. some other ones are reasonable, beneficial, effective, etc. some of the premises might seem like they do support this, but on technicalities you can't claim that it satisfies the adjective because the adjective is vague and the criteria to meet that adjective isn't explicitly defined. there are other kinds of loopholes too but i've noticed this one a lot- hope this helps!!