This question was not fun. Through POE, E was the only one that made sense to me, but at the same time, I considered it a side effect. I still don't understand how it is not regarded as a side effect since we know it contributes to the development.

@RoxySanchez No one who is levelheaded is bold. No is a group 4 indicator. With "no" you negate one of the conditionals and make it the necessary. So your "B-> LH" would actually be B -> /LH (or LH -> /B).

You would have:

• EG -> /LH (LH -> /EG)

• B -> /LH (LH -> /B)

Why is it D?

• We know that if you are LH, you are (1) /EG from the first statement and (2) /B from the second. Neither... nor = not this AND not that. So you could infer that if you are LH, you are /EG and /B

I didn't pick C because I thought willingly could be a trap :(

I missed this question because I interprete "justify the critics's reasoning" as just the premise. Is there any advice on how not to do this? Should I always assume that I am connecting the premise to conclusion for PSA?

I thought because it said if it was a sufficient and necessary issue, so I picked A for flipping them. Its more of a scale where more compassion increases praise.

@CeliaAcosta This was so helpful because I was focusing on p2 when I avoided B. Thank you!

The way I understood D was thinking about a family heirloom. The item has a high price to it, but to the family member it could be "priceless."

I do not understand how it is confusing routine with sometimes. From my understanding, the author goes from routine to never when that is a large jump. How is sometimes being confused with routine?

0/3 then 2/3, have to lock in CondR prep

I am a bit confused about why the assassination failure isn't /AAF, since it is the negated sufficient.

I did write /A -> /DS, which I can see becomes DS -> A (which I thought didn't make sense realistically), but was stumped how after it's AAF and not /AAF

I was hesitating on B because I thought we had to prove the connection of the plankton eating the fish. Though I did think D didn't add much🥲

Passage one was so challenging, or maybe science in general is hard🥲

Is A like saying AA-> reduct in M -> reduct in CD? If so, I thought you should not assume -X -> -Y

I don't really understand how the negation works in answer choice D