13/13 after the Knicks wins the Championship? Today is a good day! LFG!

"Entirely verbal" is not fully substantiated in the passage. The expert could've easily been speaking with their hands. The word entirely had me almost avoiding this answer.

Understanding that the answer is B, the reasoning behind why A is wrong in the video doesn't track. "Could not" and "does not hold" should be the contrapositive of "could" and "does hold." Because the necessary condition in both scenarios are the same. For example, A, as written says "water" (as the necessary condition, just the contrapositive version of it) if water doesn't exist then the evolution of life doesn't exist. The explanation then states that the argument however takes the opposite for granted, if the evolution of life exists, then water exists. Why is this not the same thing? I pretty sure A is the wrong answer because it doesn't constitute a flaw in the argument. And NOT because the argument took for granted the opposite position.

Need clarification on how "political structures is brought about only by certain ecological or climactic factors..." is hinting at biconditionality. Would expect the arrow to go one way given the relationship indicator of "brought about". (Ecological and Climactic > Political Structure). I would assume "only" just means there is not a world where another cause would result in a political structure, and not indicate an "if and only if" scenario.

Only got this after 3 FULL minutes! Currently batting 0.500 with these Sufficient Assumption questions. This has to be the most humbling section... right? RIGHT? I don't understand why PSA questions were so much easier given that this is a tangential application.

@Kevin_Lin I went over the video, and unfortunately still didn't understand the logic here. Avoided is the operative word here that is necessary for this logic. Unfortunately, there is a world where the intersection of avoiding training and being well-trained exists. Well-trained just means completed satisfactory training, not all of the training. For example, a doctor can be well-trained because they went through years of medical school and residency, but they avoided doing additional training through fellowships because they did not want to spend the extra time doing so. If the stimulus had said "must not have trained at all" or even "must have avoided training altogether" then the idea of not training at all would definitely imply not well trained, and there would be no room for misinterpretation.

Q2 has to be the most poorly worded question in all of the examples I've seen so far. (Despite having already been taken aback by Q1 because I had to assume clear velociraptors are in fact a subset of raptors... when that is definitely not clear. e.g. koala bears aren't bears.) Question 2: inappropriately assumes that "not well-trained" means "avoided training." And it doesn't stop there, it also assumes evolution means the Pokémon reaches its full potential which is not explicitly written in the stimulus. (e.g. Ashe's pikachu never evolved, but has arguably reached the pinnacle of his potential) To correct this, the stimulus should have read "Any Pokémon that has not evolved must have not have been well-trained" I know that it makes the question way easier without the addition of new language, but the law is very litigious... and so is this exam.