@AlbertoCamejo21 There's a lesson on bi-conditionals in the core curriculum that is useful for recognizing the terms that describe bi-conditional relationships. "but not otherwise", "if and only if", "when and only when". They don't intuitively make a ton of sense, but recognizing the common phrases that refer to bi-conditionals is easy enough.

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

All dearths are Siths. All Siths can use the force. So a dearth of props can use the force.

This explanation was so helpful, not only on this question, but in illuminating a strategy that adds to the difficulty of these analogy / parallel type problems. It may be obvious to others, but seeing you read the premise first in the answers was a lightbulb moment.

You've blown my mind in a number of these explanations where you've managed to eliminate answers rapidly using some technique that wasn't obvious on the surface.

You know when JY starts an Explanation on his soapbox or with a disclaimer, the question is a doozy.

That said, I've stared at B for 15 minutes now and still can't wrap my head around what it is trying to say, or why it is right. Having successfully eliminated all but B and E, the explanation did a great job of showing why E (and similar answers) is wrong. Learning a nuanced way of eliminating answers grammatically feels good, despite this clusterfuck of a question.

Are Governments justified in preventing questions that lend a predisposition to the legality of cigarette advertisement on legal career examination materials?

Interestingly, the tuition for my undergraduate education in Nevada was largely paid for by the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement which largely curtails tobacco advertising. Nevada uses a portion of the funds from tobacco companies from that agreement to fund an in-state scholarship that largely covers in-state university tuition.

I would buy that whale drawing on a t-shirt.

“but that’s because this person lacks perspective”

LMAO

Because dogs.

This is a fantastic sentence.

This question seems like a great example of how reading the question stem first is a good idea. After the question stem, you realize it’s probably prudent to just flat out ignore Darla’s argument since we’re only looking for a necessary assumption of Charles’ argument.

“I think we all know the definition of truth and yes, it’s what you think.”

… phew

It’s incredible how analogizing using imaginary species like unicorns and pandas makes real world examples feel much more accessible.