Bless me with these types of questions on the LSAT. I beg of you, LSAC.

I was torn between A and B, but after re-reading the stimuli, I noticed that as part of their evidence, it states, "Granted, some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments." This, in fact, contradicts A because A states that psychological states should not be a part of a legal system even though the arguments has support for those criminals with admirable motives deserving mitigated punishment.

This one is tricky because I was left among A, C, and E. I had to re-read the stimulus again and again until it clicked. Both are important projects, but the second one is still pending before its deadline. And since the author decided to pick the second one, knowing that if they were to devote their time, they wouldn't finish the project in time. Essentially, there was a priority to finish this project that is not considered later than the one that is considered late.

For the joint sufficient condition, not only /purpose serves as the only sufficient condition, but also resident, since it is a conjunction. For example, if someone were to have an animal that serves a medical legitimate purpose but is not a resident, then the framework fails to trigger.