I completely agree with this assessment; the amount of time I have spent fumbling to deselect an AC I eliminated in error is crazy. There was nothing wrong with the old system from a user perspective. I have had to change my testing strategy just because of this update. There was no reason to role it out now; I know the June exam is technically part of the 2025-2026 cycle, but I would hazard a guess that a lot of people took it for the upcoming 2026-2027 cycle, so I think it would have been smarter to implement this change in like April when the cycle is effectively over to give applicants for the upcoming cycle more time to prepare.

I am a nuclear engineer and this question makes no sense.

I think this is the type of question where I have to agree to disagree; I don't think the presence of a single word accurately captures a whole passage, especially when I would argue that obviously just refers to the fact that some industries clear benefit from increasing returns without translating to a larger, economy-wide theory.

That said, I still have to get these right and I don't know what to do in these situations.

This question has me counting with my fingers like I am still in third grade...

I will use the written explanations to rule out individual ACs, assuming I understand the stem & stimulus initially. If I don't get it at all, then I use the video explanation, so they have entirely different use cases for me.

AC A is not correct because are not told that all organisms reproduce via sexual reproduction. If that were the case, AC A would be valid (I think).

I got this wrong because I think the discrepancy I was trying to explain was why BC foods are better than BC supplements, but AC E explains a different discrepancy, why BC foods are NOT better than BC supplements despite these two studies saying food > supplements.

The fact that they called it primary school and secondary school did NOT help

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.