In question 2, why is the necessary condition “available”? Shouldn’t it be “new cat is available”? And if we don't know if Nitten is new or not, why is Nitten the subcript (AKA subset) of "available"?

I spent forever on this question because my ego refused to get it wrong. Choosing a correct answer choice almost broke my brain lmao.

##feedback Most of the time I can figure it out/know what you're saying, but sometimes your handwriting in videos makes it difficult to follow what you're saying.

I've heard this happen for many people because of burn out. I would take a few days off to reset and then come back to this. I know that's the last thing anyone wants to do with the test date approaching, but sometimes pushing ourselves is actually more counterproductive than taking a step back. And sometimes taking a break is more productive than pushing ourselves. Wishing you all the best!!

#feedback I got this right, but I'm still a little confused on when taking the contrapositive is appropriate/inappropriate for PSA questions. I think a separate video on this would be helpful.

For those of us that that made the mistake of choosing B, would you also consider that as confusing sufficiency for necessity? As an the critics thought that his book had too many autobiographical elements for a novel, so The Wanderers → /should be an autobiography. However, answer choice B is saying The Wanderers → should be an autobiography.

Why isn't it "The cat likes milk"? Why is there an extra verb (to drink)?

I understand why (D) better describes the purpose of the study, but one of the criteria for purpose of context questions is that correct answer choices also capture the author’s main motivation in writing the passage. For this passage, part of the author's main point was to argue that more empirical research is needed. Can someone explain how (D) addresses the main point?

If you're struggling with understanding why E is wrong and D is right, don't be alarmed. It took me 45+ minutes (after coming back to this the next day) for me to dissect and understand it. E is a bit convoluted

Ultimately, E is wrong because it's offering a hypothesis that explains the passage, which would resolve the discrepancy (but we're looking for the one that does NOT resolve the discrepancy). It just happens to be an alternative hypothesis. E is saying that beta-carotene just happened to correlate with health outcomes from smoking. E is saying beta-careotene doesn't actually have an impact on health outcomes. Instead, E is saying smokers who ALSO happened to eat low beta-carotene were a bigger group in the study than smokers who also happened to eat high beta-carotene. Either way, smoking is bad for you, but the results being that low-beta carotene correlated with likelihood of cancer and heart disease can actually be attributed to the fact that there was a larger group of smokers in the study who ALSO happened to eat low-beta carotene.

Interested!