#feedback maybe I’m misinterpreting but when the explanation says “The court thought the FWS’s interpretation of “traditional” defied common sense. Even though the natives hadn’t hunted sea otters within living memory, that was only because they were prevented from doing so. These circumstances should render sea otter hunting nontraditional.” Doesn’t that last sentence have a typo?

#feedback The subtitles keep saying "Lesthi" instead of "Lesky"

Wow I got the previous questions right yet spent almost twice the target time to get this question wrong. For some reason, I didn't really see the part to whole relationship in the stimulus and instead interpreted the principle to be “given challenging/futile circumstances (no survival value), there is a process that reacts accordingly (the efficiency of natural selection).” And so I picked A bc I felt that the “unable to sell” lined up with the challenging/ futile circumstance and the “stocks them only when ordered” lined up with the process that reacts accordingly.

I dismissed D because it seemed just a bit too far removed from the prompt. Instead, I picked A because I read the argument to be "BP increases due to stress (i.e. the psychological factor), and not due to exertion (i.e. the physical factor)" and I felt that A supported the argument by saying "meds that are supposed to help with BP don't actually help because they don't help to relieve the stress of the situation -- they just try to control some other irrelevant thing."

Shouldn’t “super reach” and “plausible reach” be swapped in this statement “I wouldn’t substitute a super reach for a more plausible reach” - or am I just reading it wrong? #feedback

Option B stated "It is a fact granted by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative to the practice that the editorial defends as preferable."

And I read the last clause ("that the editorial defends as preferable") as referring to "an alternative." So I thought "well the editorial does not defend the alternative as preferable" and ruled out B. Did I make a reasonable interpretation, or is that just flat-out wrong?

I had narrowed it down to either D or E. I asked myself "is it required that a substantial number of qualified teachers are not able to be convinced to relocate to the region?" My answer was "no, it's not absolutely required because qualified teachers can be hired without relocating to the region (i.e. remote work)." In fact, I only thought of that because it happened to someone I know. Granted, would a remote teacher really benefit students? --That's a whole 'nother can of worms that I figured was outside the scope of the question. I just thought that I had identified one counterexample, thereby showing E was not an absolute requirement, and so I picked D. I now see why D is too strong and therefore incorrect, but I feel like E may increasingly be seen as not an absolute requirement either.