Seems like the site is back up. I was just able to schedule.

I'm struggling to see how AC B for Q26 is stronger than C.

The passage claims that at least this part of modern evidentiary law was developed from "Bentham's prescription [which] was revolutionary." By definition of the word revolutionary, Bentham's prescriptions were not based on common-law. So doesn't it follow that at least this part (i.e. some) of modern evidentiary law was not derived from common-law?

I'm not so convinced about the distinction between laws and rules/customs since the defining quality of common-law is a body of rules/customs that have become standing precedent, i.e. law. I can't see any reason that the test writers are splitting hairs.

The reason I ultimately went with C over B is because it seems that the passage only addresses one rule of evidentiary law that is less rigid. Isn't it possible that another area of evidentiary law is more rigid?

But, alas, I'm just wrong. Instead of convincing myself I'm right I need to abandon ship. B is (somehow) stronger. And may god have mercy on us all.

I'm trying to sure up my understanding of why AC D is correct. I read D as JY did: (orderly government) → (adequate protection against demagogues). I don't see how that is inconsistent with the stimulus (adequate protection against demagogues) → (critical thinking). AC D is saying that orderly government is sufficient for protection. Why is this inconsistent with protection then requiring critical thinking. Is this not just a simple syllogism? Can it not be true that orderly government thereby requires critical thinking?

I think the answer depends on how you read "mere." If mere is meant to suggest that no other condition can exist in this arrangement—be it necessary or sufficient—then I can see why AC D is correct. But I am not certain why this would be the case.

#help

I have been caught between AC B and D. I appreciate JY dismissing B so quickly (that's the way you have to think about eliminating answers for time's sake), but I think there's more nuance than he lets on in this explanation. As I see it, both ACs require an assumption. AC D requires assuming that reasonableness is defined in terms of cost. Like JY I think this is a fair and responsible assumption. It is in line with the mode of thinking in the stimulus and is seems to anticipate what a responsible conclusion would be. AC B requires interpreting the AC to mean that the practice of spending money (not considering amount) is reasonable in itself. I initially interpreted it this way because of the phrase "in general." But AC B also refers to manufacturers broadly while the stimulus refers only to automobile manufacturers. It also has a specificity of language when it says "is reasonable" whereas the stimulus conditions "would be reasonable" on the cost of the project.

I think it is easy to contort AC B so that it is"supported" by the stimulus, but having to jump through these hoops probably demonstrates that it is not "the most strongly supported." AC D is just simpler, cleaner, and requires far less effort to justify.

All of this is frustrating, especially because I chose B. Oh well.