Filthy question. I think AC E has to follow from the following logic:

- if we know the standards committee has a quorum, then the general assembly is at 6 from premise 1.

- if the general assembly is at 6, then the general assembly of course cannot also be at 7 (/gen assm at 7).

The contrapositive of the second premise is /gen assm at 7 -> /awards committee has quorum.

That's how you get that if the standards committee has a quorum, then the awards committee doesn't have one.

Brilliant, really. Requires a really nasty leap of using inference and not just relying on conditionals to spell it out for you.

@CarterPoniatowski It has the cadence, I agree. Though hard to tell these days.

(I fell for the trap)

"legitimate interest in learning about crimes committed in its jurisdiction" was the answer to the prior question about the "state's chip" - I like how that question almost feeds into this one. If you got that one right, then answer E should ideally have been seen to be a trap answer.

Really dislike this question style, especially post LSAC changes to highlighting. Realized in BR that the search function would have made it pretty easy, however.

For B, I think it isn't really the issue of too often vs. often, but rather that community != "community as a set of individuals..." It is entirely possible, IMO, for an anthropologist using the logic of P1 to employ the notion of community, without this very dynamic notion of community as interplay between individuals. This is how I saw B as wrong when doing BR.