@ANP bro same wtf im so pissed

The passage states in the first paragraph:

"Plan members have the option of using either the plan's staff lawyers, whose services are fully covered by the cost of membership in the plan, or an outside lawyer."

It goes on to explain that if they choose an outside lawyer, that outside lawyer might accept the CAW's fee schedule as payment in full (fully prepaid), or charge a higher fee where the plan still covers a portion and the client pays the rest (partially reimbursed).

Therefore, the "benefits" (the covered or reimbursed legal services) extend beyond just using the plan's in-house staff lawyers. Members also have the option/benefit of receiving covered or discounted services from outside lawyers. This matches option A perfectly.

this was helpful in understanding why A is correct.

wtf................................... neglected.............................. hitherto..... until then........ help me......

i had a hard time tracking this. i didn't even see the line about the virtue of being created by talented writers diectors and producers. i completely glazed over that and just saw the line about mid 1920s ppl started sleuthing gossip drama about celebs and the contracts they got signed to also promoed this. and then its like not a good benefit to hollywood but rather to the press. i feel like i just skipped over that line about virtue of created by talented writers completely bc it was sandwiched in so much negativity. this is why at first none of the answers seemed correct to me.

• The 1920s: The author notes that while the 1920s used a "star system" for promotion, the movies themselves had the "virtue of being created by talented writers, directors, and producers devoted to the art of storytelling."

• Today: The author claims that modern movies now prioritize "exciting an audience's curiosity" (publicity) over "satisfying its desire to have an engaging experience."

• The Conclusion: If the movies of the 1920s were devoted to storytelling and modern movies fail to satisfy the desire for an engaging experience, it is a safe inference that the author believes 1920s films were, in general, more engaging to watch.

was there a reason why in the low res summary you didn't identify the two diff examples? i see the general like 'evidence provided' but why didn't we specify what the two examples were? i guess i'll find out as i keep reading. I think im struggling with figuring out what to include in a low res and what isn't absolutely needed to be noted down.

i can feel my eyes glazing over

bruh got baited into D

12/14!!!! i feel so much better after having done this module and learned the skills of low level summaries.

i got tricked by A!!!!

sooooo helpful to have the text explained earlier!!!!! the low res summaries are one of the best pieces of advice given. thank u.

this is super helpful, the tips on how to break down the readings really help.

i got the chain correct, but i also had to map out each and every single one of the answers which took soooo long....... but thinking you can only go from Left to Right, not Right to Left in the chain is very helpful. it felt good figuring it out in the end!

the more i do NA questions the more i hate it. ive gotten the past 3 Qs wrong. omfg losing my mind.

i couldve sworn A was a trick wtf LOL

i didn't consider confidence as a by product, i thought we were talking about success.

@GabrielleRothstein ive noticed that most problems are like this!! usually when i'm unable to narrow it down to 2, then that means i probs don't understand the question well enough.