Maybe this is the linguistics major in me but some of these predicate verbs feel like they're transitive and NEED to take an object. For example, "depends." "The formation depends," is grammatically questionable at best. Depends on what? You would never say "She depends," for instance. You would instead say something like "She depends on coffee." I feel like just understanding that sometimes you have complex subjects and verbs and being able to tell what the core noun is should be enough for understanding sentences.

If anyone's even close to the level of brain rot that I'm at, you can think of it this way: apply the Among Us principle. There's two imposters. If there's a round where only one kill happened and multiple people CAN verifiably confirm I did not commit the kill, that does not make me innocent. This is precisely because there is a possibility that I am the second imposter. In the same way, the only partial evidence in the stimulus cannot acquit Miller.

I just want to talk to whoever wrote option D for Q19 cause what in the ambiguous sentence is that second part.

I think even Simone Biles would sprain a muscle doing the mental gymnastics to get to answer choice C, I am a grade A hater of this question.

If anyone's looking for a laugh my low-res summary was:

Group 1- big boom and boom everywhere

Group 2- many small boom all the time

Group 3- big but constrained boom