OA from PowerScore Forum-
Here's how the argument sets up in very broad terms:
Premise: (some) genetic mutations in bacteria occurred at random.
Conclusion: all genetic mutation is random.
Second, from a mechanistic standpoint, the biggest change from premise to conclusion is the "some" and "all" elements. But, the conclusion contains the "all" element, so we need a way to get to that conclusion in the answer choices. Interestingly, only answer choices (A) and (C) reference the "all" element, so those two are the most attractive Contenders from the outset. Let's examine each answer more closely.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. If we add this statement to the stimulus, we see an interesting structure. I'm going to remove the "genetic mutation" portion because that's common to all elements, and removing it allows us to isolate the numbers game being played:
(A): it's all or none.
Premise: it's some.
Conclusion: Well, since it's all or none, and the presence of some rules out none, it must be all.
That's literally the process at work here, and this answer choice allows us to connect the thread from "some" to "all" in the stimulus. However, and this is what makes this question a classic, they've made this connection in a very tricky fashion.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice can be diagrammed as:
All random in bacteria :arrow: all random in life
The problem here is that the sufficient condition, "All random in bacteria," isn't know (just "some" is known, which while it could be "all," isn't known to be "all" for sure) so adding this statement to the premises doesn't give us "all random in life" as the conclusion.
This answer can be analogized as follows:
(C): If all high school football players are athletic, then football players at every level of the sport are athletic
Premise: Some high school football players are athletic.
Conclusion: No conclusion can be drawn.