A vs C

@AddisonPatton, Let's briefly look at the structure of the argument: To become an expert, a person must practice. Expert -> practice If people practice for three hours a day, they will eventually become experts. Practice 3x -> expert Therefore, if a person is an expert, that person must have practiced for at least 3 hours a day. Expert -> practice 3x. This is flawed logic because it confuses a sufficient condition - practice 3 x - with a necessary condition - expert. We can conclude that if one practices 3x a day, this fact guarantees that one will become an expert. But we cannot conclude that if one is an expert, he must have practiced three hours a day because he could have practiced a different amount of time/ on a different schedule. Per our first premise, we see that for one to be an expert, one must practice but we cannot conclude that it must be 3x a day. Your intuition with (A) and (C) is correct. (A) is incorrect because the argument's conclusion tells us that "if one is an expert..then..", hence, we only consider a scenario where one is an expert is true, so a scenario where one is not an expert is irrelevant. (C) describes the contrapositive of the conclusion - ~ practice 3 x-> ~ expert. Since this statement is logically equivalent to the conclusion, the conclusion does in fact take into account this possibility. Let me know if you have any further questions.