I thought C made sense because the argument makes the leap from “unconscious thoughts” to “unconscious fears”. The difference between expression and suppression would be that thoughts of violence and savagery would be “expressions”, while fearing horses would mean that we only thought of horses as gentle and noble because we “suppressed” the negative traits of the animal.

Can anyone explain why this line of thinking is incorrect?

#help

For answer choice D, I get that "constant" is the key word here and that having a non-constant demand doesn't wreck our argument. However, one possibility of having a non-constant demand is having an increased demand as a response to the "periodic" trimming.

Then wouldn't the periodic trimming be ineffective since poachers would strike between trimming periods, so they they might even accept partially grown rhino horns, and the intervals between periods would have to get shorter and shorter but would never catch up to the poachers' demand?

#help

Attend law school -> redeem yourself?

If we negate that conditional statement we have:

/law school and redeemed

law school and /redeemed

Both of those statements above that we negated seem very plausible, so it would appear that attending law school isn't sufficient for redeeming yourself, and that you don't necessarily redeem yourself by attending law school.

Perhaps then there are many ways of redeeming yourself. If each pathway to redemption partially redeems you because it demonstrates one way you have changed yourself for the better, then complete redemption can only come from the continuous process of disciplining and harnessing the parts of yourself that you find lacking. Just keep fighting the good fight and living out the Dao, or the Way.

I wanted to have some fun with logic, feel free to poke holes in it.