no worries! sorry for my late response, hopefully you've got it by now. what B is saying is essentially that the stimulus is treating the relationship as biconditional when it's not (that's the flaw). "are" in the stimulus reverses the relationship. to get that conclusion, you'd need all computer scientists to appreciate it, and all those who appreciate it to be computer scientists. like nobody on earth can appreciate it who's not a computer scientist, and if you're a computer scientist you automatically appreciate it.

This is not worth worrying about

The way I think of sentences like "Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers" is like, if you're someone who can understand the architecture, that means you're a computer scientist. Because they're the only ones capable of understanding. Similar to "Only those who are above the age of 5 can be over 5 feet tall." If someone is above 5 feet tall, they must be above the age of 5. Hope that helps

I did the same thing, all you can do is ask! as an attorney you'll need to advocate for others, best to start now doing it for yourself :)

Wow this is really gonna help test my reading comprehension skills better

@ActuallyJozu your explanation unlocked this for me

I really wanted B but the way the question was phrased "strengthens the grounds presented by the archaeologist" made me think that I had to strengthen the erosion explanation, which made me very confused about this question

Didn’t even understand the difference between “critical” and “scornful.” He didn’t like the attitude of the lawyers defending a laws he found to be bizarre.

@Stylo I completely agree I wrote off D and E because of the 1920s reference

@AndrewWiedenkeller the passage doesn't state the relative ages of landfill and incinerator use, and doesn't state that deep-well injection is more widely accepted, just that it's been increasingly used more

@AndrewWiedenkeller that's exactly what I thought, and isn't moving animals around also "agriculture"? I chose C bc it was the only one, in my mind, that extended to large areas of land, but I knew it was problematic due to the "inedible" part.

@osaieh Same happened to me - I also thought - wouldn't moving large populations of animals be considered agriculture? like, sheep herding IS agriculture.

yeah I had no idea what "late paintings" meant

@DavidCutie I took it to understand that it's "outlining a theory" because it at least presents why the author believes that legal writing is without narrative. The author's "theory" on why legal writing is this way. Passage A doesn't really do this.

@PriYanksya That's exactly what happened to me