in addition to my day job, i’m also a part time fitness instructor. i’m not sure these fit into my overall story of why i’m applying for law school, but i think still go to show my professionalism and ability to work with clients. is that something i should include on my resume? or should i not include it because it doesn’t fit clearly with my story? would you recommend thinking about tying it into a supplemental essay?

I thought this was a sufficient/necessary confusion flaw, but then I did not see that as one of the options. I also thought that often the answer of "the author overlooks" or the "the author ignores" are usually wrong bc the stimulus often overlooks/ignores a lot of things i.e. since the stimulus is only a few sentences, ofc it overlooks a bunch of stuff.

Anyone have any tips about this? I can now see how answer choice E is correct, but I can't get out of my bad pattern of thinking where I predict an answer choice but then I don't see the exact answer choice as I've worded it. Or is this not a sufficient/necessary confusion and I misunderstand this question entirely?

@Katie_Volpert thanks for this explanation! just want to point out that in the video JY says that the translation for D is as follows:

C--> /D --> F

and then doesn't go on to translate the conclusion. When I was practicing translation, I also wrote down what you did in your comment, which I still believe to be right. I would just say that JY's explanation as written above is wrong and makes his video really confusing for someone who is trying to follow along to his video.

JY's explanation is super confusing. He seems to think that answer choice A has an error, but I'm not really seeing why that is the case. My understanding is that the reason vacuum tubes are not now preferable is because of the last sentence of the stimulus: "vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors." Which is basically exactly what A says.

Even though I picked the right answer, A, JY's explanation confuses me a lot, and I would like to understand why my reasoning is incorrect so I can just improve my skills overall.

Is this a necessary/sufficient confusion type? That's how I thought of this question, and I did get it right, but they did not use that term in the explanation, when they normally love to highlight that lol. Can someone please confirm that this is a necessary/sufficient confusion flaw?

@ConnerKline This also had my head spinning for a while so I hope my explanation can be helpful:

1981 to 1985 definition of serious accidents: more strict

after 1986 definition of serious accidents: less strict

Thus, based on this alone we would have expected to see the count of serious accidents go up in 1986 rather than go down. However, in reality what we actually saw was that the count of serious accidents did go down, despite the now less strict definition of serious accidents. This means that the smaller number of serious accidents is indeed smaller in 1986 than in previous years. In other words, if we kept the same more strict definition of serious accidents from 1985, then we may expect to see an even greater decrease in the number of serious accidents. If anything, the numbers from 1986 are inflated, compared to 1985. This does not weaken the argument that the speed limit led to a decrease in serious accidents.

just btw for anyone who is confused, kevin's explanation is a lot more helpful than JY's.

I read AC A as supporting the reasoning i.e.

variable climate -> hard to rule and defend -> hurt food production -> Rome fell

So answer choice A strengthening that 2nd part of the chain. Can anyone explain why this is not a valid way to interpret AC A?

It literally says that "some community members who favored Western notions of standard language writing or whose training in Western-style linguistics was especially rigid," implying that there is some Western-style linguistics used to make traditional language written. Thus, how can the answer be C?

Why can't we just think of All statements the same as conditional statements? Is the negation rule for both also essentially saying the same thing?

For the option 3 where "or" actually means "and", does that mean "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon" = "Jane is a faster eater than Mary and John"?

But "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon" /= "Jane is a faster eater than Mary or Jon"? ... where this now becomes option 2 usage of "or"?