Who the heck is Lucy

(@7Sage you should probably fix the AC E explanation)

I believe they could be condensed significantly, but still found them very helpful overall. If anything, I would appreciate it if some of the other lessons referenced them more frequently. For example, the use of several referentials in a clause indicates (to me, at least) that what I am reading has a good chance of being the conclusion in MC questions, but I don't think this is part of the curriculum.

Is AC C really antisupported? The analysis claims it is, but the stimulus doesn't address what we should or shouldn't do, so I think it is better considered unsupported.

7Sage really should update the video explanation for this question. It is not wrong, but could be way more thorough.

Is it correct to understand that the upper bound for some, many, and most can all be the same?

@krzhou_1 I second this question #help

I think this question is confusing because the previous lesson biases you. If you were just offered "Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential buildings with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it" and had never seen this theme/example/whatever before, it would be obvious that this argument is flawed as whether or not "Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more" would be clearly irrelevant as it does not fall under an established rule.

But instead we are all thinking back to the earlier lesson and operating with the assumption that "pOpNo and p3+Ms" is part of the rule, and the example given here fulfills this rule, so it seems valid when biased.