If there's still room I'd love to join!

I'm interested as well! EST and free nights and weekends

I think this is an argument that leads to a contradiction. Mapped out it looks like this:

Role: Protect HR

~Constitution Explicit --> SC Outside Constitution

~ HR Subject --> SC Inside Constitution

Must use Constitution

False(Role: Protect HR)

In letter terms:

A

A-->B

C-->~B

C

A is false

E) basically states we could as easily conclude C is false instead of A which is easy to see when you substitute in the letters.

Hope this helps!

I was stuck on (B) for a long time, and I realized for B to be correct I STILL had to assume (A).

My thought process: Well if the bridge disappeared then the spear points would have been made in Siberia (important assumption:) making them older than the ones in NA.

I want to shake something. (B) does not work WITHOUT the assumption of A

This explanation video doesn't match the question from the PT, is there another explanation video for this question in the works?

I'm interested!! I'm in NYC area :)

I also was stuck between C and E but solved it in a different way. I thought the defining feature of C was the use of CONTEXT and of E the use of MANNER.

I said to myself - what if there was a tv show/podcast/radio show not intended to entertain a broad audience but to educate. (the stimulus states "they are expected to" not that they always need to entertain a broad audience).

I thought that C closed too many of those gaps by saying it doesn't matter of the content or the intent it just matters it is a tv/radio show. While E implies that it is fine to do it on those shows as long as the manner doesn't lead to a lower standard of psychological help!

I'm interested!

Hi!

Why C is right

C. This has nothing wrong with it, so keep.

Moral Ideals - mentions that it is a "human right"

Self Interest - The idea of self interest is murky but not outright wrong. They mention "nothing is gained by forcing citizens to disseminate...". It's arguing that when you adopt these principles there are advantages. When you don't adopt the principles you don't get these wonderful advantages ("nothing is ever gained by...")

Wrong Answers

A. Free speech doesn't flourish - good ideas flourish because of free speech. Wrong.

B. There are two reasons why this is wrong. They aren't arguing for basic rights of citizens rather they are arguing Freedom of speech is A basic right and should be adopted. Also this is the opposite of what they are arguing. Freedom of speech is a basic right (and should be adopted) AND it is the only "rational policy" (and should be adopted)... so its not for it's own sake

D. This is out of score there is no discussion about the "difficulty of suppressing the truth" and there is no warning. They argue that there is nothing to lose but everything to gain.

E. This is a reversal answer - they are describing an ideal answer that CAN be achieved and should be achieved.

I didn't see anything immediately wrong with C. But there were glaring problems with the other four answers. So I went with C.

I hope this helps!