Ill try to explain. I didn't get this for the longest time, but I'm pretty sure I understand the difference.

for grouping repeating items, the categories that the game pieces get sorted into aren't interchangeable, they are distinct.

there might be a rule for a specific category. for example, you might know that P is on day 3.

for grouping int, the categories that the items get sorted into are interchangeable.for some reason it seems to be way more effective to make a chart for grouping repeating items than for grouping int.

for a grouping int game, a rule might say "one of the costumes needs to have the color red." for a grouping repeating items game, a rule might say "costume one needs to the color red in it"

I hope that makes sense.

I've never had to translate something like this into lawgic before, but it seems like what this is really saying is "his qualities include laziness." so H --> L. H for him, L for lazy. "He" is a sufficient condition for lazy. And contrapositive /l --> h/ if laziness isn't a quality, its not him.

pretty much 60-89 at this point for everything

I feel like D could be true based on the stimulus. The stimulus says that both an epistemological claim and its opposite can both be a part of medieval epistemology. An opposite claim is probably a claim that opposes, or contradicts another claim, right? So if D is a possible truth based on the passage, in what world would it weaken the stimulus? E says "this whole category has the possibility of not even existing," which certainly weakens the an argument that centers around saying "we can define this category as XYZ"