I feel like E is contradictory.

Since the text says that, "Lowe's assumption about monument construction and the occupation span of a site might well be disproved if further investigations of Classic Mayan sites established that some remained heavily settled"

It is saying that it can be disproved, which means that it is possible to confirm the accuracy. This goes against what E says

I put that C was correct because it says that the government cannot determine whether citizens of Country F have majority ownership.

The stim says that the gov MUST ENSURE that citizens of Country F will have majority ownership.

wouldnt that be sufficient for a violation? even if we don't know the majority ownership, we still know that they did not ENSURE it

Im confused because he does ADDRESS the arguments advanced even though he fails to refute them.

Im confused. Because in the explanation video the tutor says

criticize--> /seriously harm & hopes to benefit someone else

and then he says

/criticize --> harms or /hope to benefit someone else

but wouldnt the contrapositive be:

seriously harm & /hopes to benefit someone else -> /criticize

How do we determine which part of the statement is X or Y if:

X --> Y

For example, why is it :

microscopic organism → capable of feeling pain

and NOT

capable of feeling pain --> microscopic organism

Philadelphia → sunny

/sunny → /Philadelphia

Therefore,

(1)philadelphia is always sunny

(2) If its not sunny, its not in Philadelphia

even though 2 is factually incorrect, is this the right way to go about it? please help