I thought C was wrong. The line "developed innovations" is referring to Marshall setting up "a predetermined legal campaign" and so I thought the test case strategy did not necessarily have the innovative attribute since it was just "one aspect of this campaign." In other words, I thought the predetermined legal campaign was innovative but not necessarily a part of that campaign (test case strategy).

@ConnerKline I had the same thought process as this student. I can see the logic in the tutor's response but I still cannot move past D since it says "'fake' and 'original' do not apply." The concept of authenticity may be foreign to the Bambara people of Mali but the author does apply the concept authentic (and therefore fake/original) towards the end of the last paragraph ("only the ritual mask should be seen as authentic, for it is tied to the form's original function"). Therefore, the categories of fake and original do apply.

@IsaacZhb Agreed this sentence made me think A was correct. Talking about radiocarbon dating: "These data can show the location and frequency of past earthquakes and provide hints about the likelihood and location of future earthquakes."

For A (correct answer), I was concerned that the stimulus was saying:

If helpful AND not difficult to do so, then laudable.

So A giving us only helpful to trigger "always laudable" felt too strong. Would appreciate seeing how the first part of A ("always laudable to do something helpful to someone") is correct.

@StephanieGurico Yes! I think we should meet virtually first and then add in person sessions too.

The video explanation was helpful in sorting through the errors in my thought process. However, I'm curious if this sentence should also be considered when thinking about this question: "Finally, throughout the campaign, the ministers managed to maintain their moderate political ties." When in BR, I got AC A because I thought this quoted sentence was showing that the campaign "did not signal a significant change" in their moderate political ties. Therefore, their involvement in the campaign did not interfere with their political goals of election or helping change through established political channels (examples from passage). I'm curious is this pokes at anything in the argument or still is another way we're getting goals and methods mixed up.