Question 23 is a most strongly supported question as these three words most strongly support suggests.

Uh, this is in contrast to question 22.

So they did like sort of a quick, uh, back-to-back 22, 23 both using the same words,

but 22 was a strengthening and this is actually most strongly supported.

So I think that- I think that they were trying something there.

But anyway, uh, let's take a look at this.

Oh, great. So you put if in the middle of the sentence again.

You know, I just- I really wish that we just start putting like, you know, when you write,

if you actually mean to be clear, just always put the if in the beginning of a sentence, right?

I mean, if this were like a like third grade grammar kind of thing,

I would just- I would give this person an F for writing like this.

Anyway, so if business people are willing to invest in modern industries that have not yet been pursued there,

so I don't know what you want to just- how about just a big I to represent this- all this idea, right?

If business people are actually willing to invest in new industries,

new modern industry that don't exist there in developing countries,

then a developing country can substantially increase its economic growth.

So, uh, substantially, I don't know, substantially increase economic growth, something like this, right?

Now, this is a sufficient condition.

Now, if I were to ask you, okay, let's take a look at a poor developing country in sub-Saharan Africa.

Let's try to get- get that country to substantially increase economic growth.

How can we do it?

Well, you're like, oh, one sufficient condition is to get business people to become willing to invest in modern industries

that are not yet in the pursuit there, like, I don't know, like cell technology, right? Cell towers, right?

Or, um, I don't know, modern cars, electric cars, solar power cars, right?

Whatever these modern industries don't exist yet.

Now, is that the only way to- no, it's not. It's not the only way, right?

This is a sufficient condition.

Okay, so, uh, but being the first to invest- now, see, they're now commenting on this condition, right?

Being the first to invest is a callback, is a referent to this willing investment, right?

It's a referential phrase.

But being the first to invest, because if they don't exist, they're the first, is very risky.

So now they just say, oh, but this sufficient condition, like, you know, their willingness to invest,

but I'm gonna comment on this, right? It's risky.

And moral, where people- business people have little incentive to take this risk.

Not only is it risky, there's little incentive. Little incentive. Low incentive.

Why? Why is there a little incentive?

Because if the business actually succeeds, many people will just crowd the market and cut into their profits.

Competition will go up and cut their profits.

See, these things, these two things are just commentary on this idea, right?

On this sufficiency idea.

If business people are willing to invest, then we can significantly increase economic growth.

And now you're just like, well, hold on a second, right?

This thing, I'm not sure if this thing's actually gonna happen.

Why? Because it's risky, and there's little incentive for people to take that risk.

So, okay, so basically, you know, at the end of this, we're left with, well, here's one sufficient idea,

sufficient condition, rather, for this to happen, but chances of this happening is slim, right?

Because of all these reasons.

So, all right, what's most strongly supported from this?

Solar power cars. Further investment in that industry, solar power cars, a second company, solar power cars,

will not contribute to that. Why? Why will it not contribute?

Why will it not contribute?

What about this tells us that one solar power car company, and now a second solar power car company, will not contribute?

That just seems false.

I mean, this seems to run against common sense, even.

I mean, certainly nothing in here, everything in here is silent about this, right?

But it just says it's standalone. I don't get it.

Why? I mean, in fact, this seems just actually patently false, right?

I mean, depending on which modern industry you're talking about, here we know that, look, modern have not yet been pursued there.

That means it doesn't exist.

If it doesn't even exist, how can there be greater competition within a thing that doesn't exist?

There's no competition, right?

B's, I don't know, B's kind of crazy, too.

Increase its prospects, improve the odds for economic growth.

See, if you improve the odds for significant economic growth, then you certainly improve your odds for economic growth, right?

I mean, of course.

So now, how can we improve our odds for significant economic growth?

Well, what if you make it a little less risky?

What if you provide a little more incentive?

See, because here's a clear sufficiency condition for this, right?

It's just, you know, we talked about how the sufficiency condition likely won't happen.

So what if you made it a little more likely to happen?

What if you made the sufficiency condition a little more likely to trigger?

Then you make it a little more likely to experience significant economic growth, which you do make it more likely to experience economic growth.

By providing added incentive for investment in modern industry that have not been—see?

Little incentive?

Oh, let's add to an incentive.

Let's get rid of one of these problems, right?

That's great.

D is a pretty classic cookie-cutter trap, wrong answer choice.

It's backwards, right?

It says a developing country would not experience growth unless—so unless group 3 negates sufficient, right?

Get rid of this knot.

Country experienced economic growth, sufficiency condition, something like this, right?

Points over to its business people, investment, something like the I, right?

So something like this thing pointing to something like this thing.

So I think the error that I'm calling out, the cookie-cutter error, is the arrow, right?

It's pointing backwards.

Man, you know, like, it's a significant risk to be the first mover.

E is saying, oh, well, then if you're the second mover, there's no risk, right?

There's little risk.

It's incredibly presumptuous.