Does anyone have any other tips for fully comprehending the passage? I only get the questions right when we do them in lessons and the passage is fully broken down for me, but once I do it myself I'm confident in my answers but I get them wrong because I just don't understand the passage correctly.

I was the same, I think that just shows our problem is just reading the passages, rather than application into the questions.

.

I am confused on what it means when an answer choice says takes for granted. Does that mean that the stimulus wrongly claims something? I don't know why that word phrasing confuses me.

I've been understanding NA but I just do not understand this question at all for some reason.

Because she could have unintentionally raised moral questions in her writing. Whether or not she intended to, all we need to prove is she did. It doesn't matter how or why. E is talking about more than the bare minimum, when the bare minimum is all we need for it to be REQUIRED. It is very possibly that she raised moral questions UNINTENTIONALLY, so it is not a requirement for the argument.

What helped me understand it was thinking about it like this. The second rule does not say anything about what is necessary to "should receive" the award, just what a police officer may do to "should receive" it (this is where you can confuse sufficiency for necessity). It just says one route to how you should receive the award. Since it is the sufficient condition, and nowhere in the rule it says that saving someone's life, going beyond reasonable actions, and it being this year is NECESSARY, there are endless possibilities of what else a police officer can do so he should receive this award. Maybe having a certain number of rightful arrests allows him to "should receive" this award (I'm just thinking of a random example). The second rule just explains one route on how to get there. However, the first rule says what MUST happen to be eligible (and therefore to even be considered to have "should received" it or not). Because Penn failed that condition by not having an exemplary record in answer choice A, he is not even in the set of people to be considered for the award. This proves the conclusion of why he should not.