@JeffreyRamirez (fyi: when I say negate, or negate and flip, I mean take the contrapositive). If we don't take the contrapositive of /9th Lvl -> more to learn, then we can't add it to our chain. We need a common link, which comes from "9th Lvl". Chains are normally the best for answering questions and quickly seeing how one things leads to another.

/9th Lvl -> more to learn

vs

/more to learn -> 9th Lvl

(This is the same principle. But expressed in different ways—see lessons on contrapositive).

Then we have our chain from before:

9th Lvl -> command/control -> extensive training

Which format from above allows us to slot that conditional (more to learn etc.) right into this chain of conditionals? That's what you need to be asking.

What if we were given another bit of information..."Unless a wizard has spent 5 years at Hogwarts, they cannot be considered to have had extensive training." ...or, /5 years->/extensive training vs extensive training -> 5 years. Which format is better for our chain above?

You're almost there...

You had the chain:

9th Lvl -> command/control -> extensive training

Then you have an additional piece of info:

/9th Lvl -> more to learn

But, we can flip this (flip and negate):

/more to learn -> 9th Lvl

What do we know about people on the 9th Lvl? (Refer to the chain above):

/more to learn -> 9th Lvl -> command/control -> extensive training

Developing your intuition takes time, at the start a bit of trial and error is no problem as long as you are correctly flipping (flip and negate). See how I tackle your first example:

If you have A -> B and /A -> C, the connecting idea is A. That is the only way to make a chain. If you flip and negate the first conditional you get /B ->/A and you can make the chain /B -> /A -> C (Great!). Or you can flip and negate the second conditional, getting /C -> A, making the chain /C -> A -> B (also great!). The chains say the same thing, one just might be in the correct order for a specific question. e.g. What must be the case if A happens? The answer is B must happen. The second chain is easier for quickly recalling the ideas we've written down.

My advice would be to get used to trial and error. Also, flipping and negating correctly. The rest is intuition you build over time as you map out more conditionals and answer more questions.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any follow ups.

@ITTutoring

Though, (going into way more detail than is required/helpful) wouldn't the common law precedents involve precedents in case law?

There are two uses of precedent which is confusing. The first refers to a lack of precedent in relation to how courts in Belize view indigenous rights. The second refers to the precedent (established practice) of Belize looking to other common law countries for "advice" when considering their own judicial decisions. Answer choice D refers to this second precedent.

The first is a problem in the passage which needs a solution. The second is what the Maya's want to happen in this case, since it would mean Belize would look to other common-law countries (Aus, Can, U.S) which have a judicial precedent of recognising indigenous peoples rights. The Maya want this.

——————————

Also, the full answer to D is: "The courts of Belize have relied in analogous situations upon the sorts of common-law precedents that the Maya argue should be applied". The bit you cut out is paramount. It hasn't happened yet in this case—it's happened in the past and the Maya want it to happen again here (as the precedents in other common-law countries work in their favour).