I understand that the first part of the first sentence (because humans....) could be used as a premise for the intermediary conclusion (it is clear that...) but the explanation given for why that is is due to the premise and conclusion indicator words. I recently did a question, however, where they switched up the premise and conclusion indicator words intentionally to confuse us, so I'm cautious about relying on just those words to understand which part is the intermediary conclusion. And, I know you can ask which part makes more sense as an explanation for the other, but in this case it seems like support could flow both directions. It could also make sense that the because humans are still biologically adapted to a certain diet, we can conclude that humans have evolved little since the development of agriculture. Thoughts?

One reason why I discarded B as the right answer was because of the first sentence, which states that in the eighteenth century, "most components of modern evidence law had been assembled." The wording of that made it seem to me that what we classify as modern evidence law began in the eighteenth century, and therefore modern evidence law and eighteenth-century law are overlapping. If I just use my assumptions, it's obvious those would be different, but this course has taught me to use the exact meanings of what is written, rather than assumptions I make. Can someone explain to me how that sentence does NOT imply what I understood?

I was wondering about this! It seems so clear that in the stimulus, auto mechanics w/ EE are NOT the same--and therefore cannot chain up--as mechanics w extensive experience. A bit confused about that.

It seems like JY rules out any answer choices which are negatives in this section. Should we assume that the answer choice will not be in the contrapositive for PSA questions, because if so, a negative could theoretically provide the correct answer choice?