@ said:

I've always dreamed of having a solid excuse for becoming an alcoholic, and this career path lines up with that dream nicely.

On topic, you are honestly the first person I've ever met with any sort of drive or passion for labor laws haha, I imagine you will be fairly successful since you have that going for you!

I know someone going to Columbia who is becoming a lawyer to justify his cocaine addiction, so you're not alone... as far as justifying alcoholism and drug use though, being a writer works too (Hemingway, formerly Stephen King, etc.).

Paused the video to come up with my own parallel argument to the Socrates one and coincidentally used Charlie in my parallel argument too lol

I don't think A is the contrapositive of what the stimulus says. Because the contrapositive is "if it's not poetry, it can be translated well" whereas A says that "if it is non-poetic literature, it can be translated well." In order for the latter statement to be the same as the former, we'd have to assume "non-poetic literature" includes every single written work that can be translated besides poetry (which is what the contrapositive is saying). For instance, what if instruction manuals or street signs are not considered "non-poetic literature" because they're not considered literature? According to the contrapositive, these can be translated well. But if these are not considered literature, then A would not indicate that they can be translated well and is therefore not saying the same thing as the contrapositive.