i dont get why most of the logic that has been taught has to do with very basic formal logic tools, then half the time we use visualizations of sets and stuff to explain the answer instead of just using the logic that we were taught. This makes it very confusing due to the lack of continuity, moreover it makes questions like these, that should be fairly easily, overly complicated since I am trying to turn them into the logical formulas YOU taught us.

hardest question i've ever seen and bro decides not to map it out. I know the difficulty of this question is its grammar but like plz.

I chose E over A, but probably for the wrong reasons. I fell for essentially all of A's assumption traps, so I thought it was a spectrum of support question with two strong supports, and I had to pick the stronger of the two. I picked E because I thought it overshot the hypothesis; essentially, treating daycares as massive families with like 20 kids in comparison to a large family with like five kids. Bittersweet lmao.

Is E not a serious side effect? The stimulus says the drug has no serious side effects? A drug that helps to create a worse illness seems like a pretty serious side effect. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

I feel as though the author is going into detail about the negative consequences that will occur if change goes through (benefits the wealthy, makes being a lawyer more complicated, etc.), strongly implying a worsening of the situation. As for the second part, I believe it's reasonable to assume that if one is attempting to make changes to the legal system, it is under the pretense that it will (or at least presents itself as) improve the situation. Why else would it be recommended? I think C is a stronger version of E. However, I am sure that I'm missing something.