I'm not sure if I'm a little late here but this is what I thought. In passage A, Blackmail is seen as an issue because it combines two legal things, and the result of which (the actual blackmailing) is seen as illegal. One of these being your right to free speech - this is stated in line 9-10, "the right to free speech protects my rights to make such a disclosure". In passage B, we have blackmail in the roman empire being less of an issue. This is seen in line 34-36, where the roman jurists and legal theory takes any individual being harmed to be prioritized over one's entitlement to free speech. I think this requires knowing that blackmail will require one to freely disclose information about another. In the roman empire, what is more important is that you are harmed by such a disclosure, rather than your right to disclose at all (as it is in the US and Canada alluded to in lines 9-10). The tricky part of passage B is to know why harm is mentioned so much - it's just contrasting the two competing legal interests here that would make blackmail possible (which is introduced in passage A). Passage B makes clear that their more important standard is protecting one from being harmed -like shame or a damaged reputation - rather than freely disclosing what you want the way free speech would entitle one to.

A bit late but I've been in the same situation! I don't think this works for everybody, and I'll disclose that at first I was not a morning person, but when you work a really demanding job, it feels like the only time you have to yourself is BEFORE the work day begins. I would start my studying a couple of hours before my work day pretty regularly, that way you leave room for when work extends past normal hours and also give yourself the time at the end of the day to completely disconnect. I found this especially useful because I need social interaction in my days so it left time for me to see my friends too during the hours people were normally free. And given you prioritize your sleep quality as well, it allows you to study when you're not already burned out from your work day. I hope this helps! You're definitely not alone and should be proud of yourself by juggling two challenging things at once.

I also thought this was the right answer, because if the battle was historic, and the painting represented it, then it taking place before the artist was born would make us question why he appears in the painting itself.

BUT, we know this is wrong because it doesn’t do anything to weaken the argument. If the battle took place 100 years ago, does that stop him from painting himself in it? The AC falls silent if that is the case and we are left to assume that it does mean he wouldn't paint himself in. Weird, for sure, but it just does not give us a reason to believe that he didn't still paint himself in. I came to understand this when distinguishing E from D, where we are now given a reason to consider why he might not have been the painter. Even given the lack of background, AC D still gives you a scenario where one could expect Leo not to be the painter bc we know it is taboo to do so, but E requires you to make an assumption that the battle having occurred before he was born would mean that he wouldn't paint himself in it, which we do not have grounds to believe.

I just got off Hold w LSAC and they said that the no time slots available issue and only getting the in person option has been widespread and that they are trying to solve it. They also told me that it appears that there won't be a cap on the time slots to sign up for if you're taking a remote test and that we should be getting some sort of update soon when the issue is fixed !! So i would just wait for that update and come back and try signing up friday or monday.

this is late, but i thought about it this way: we don't really know if economic downsides to this bill have anything to do with it being sound policy. this would mean that noneconomic consequences MIGHT BE relevant in determining if it is a sound policy too. These are all the factors to consider when determining what is or is not sound policy. its not about if they usually consider economic policies, but about if they consider them in this scenario at all. the argument is assuming her that the economic drawbacks are sufficient enough to nix the bill, when in this situation we do not know if that is true or not. There could be other reasons outside of economics that are more important.