I made the same mistake and still don't understand why, at the first readthrough, I would not focus on extinction rather than preventing poaching. Can anyone explain?

I made the same mistake—it says he is not responsible for NON-exterior walls (I also misread non-exterior as exterior).

I always trip over double-negative

statements

Hey, I'm taking the test in Oct & Nov and would like to join the group chat!

Loving the curriculum. The way it's being taught is sticking with me. Thank you

Loving the new lessons

The second video on this page has no audio. Not sure if it's just me.

This question is definitely one where we have to use POE. Since you understand why C is wrong, I'll try to explain E.

After reading all the other answer choices and knowing they were wrong, I broke down the answer choice (just like JY's explained it: 2 inferences, 1st is an explanation inference and the 2nd is a predictive inference).

Then, I broke down the last paragraph into a low-resolution summary. The first half of the paragraph is explaining the difference between good and outstanding performance is due to extensive training and not innate talent (previously stated in the passage). So I considered this the "explanation inference " (1 out of 2 inferences).

The second half of the paragraph explicitly states the word "predictors" which led me to make the connection that the second inference is about a certain predictor (predictor-prediction). The second paragraph is not a prediction, as we would think at first but it identifies a predictor that can be effective in predicting superior performance.

This question took me a long time, unsure if this was the best strategy. Happy to hear about how other people approached this question!

I am so confused!! Does anyone have a different explanation?

I don't think we are assuming here. We are drawing a valid conclusion/inference by analyzing the given facts.

Consider this sentence: "Dogs are better than cats. Dogs can run fast"

We can infer from the above two sentences that cats can't run fast, which is why dogs are better than cats. We are not assuming that cats can't run fast, we are merely inferring that from the two given statements.

The following is an excerpt from the above lesson:

"Step 4: Apply the translation rule

Here, the ideas introduced by these words are the sufficient conditions.

Z → REC"

It says that the ideas introduced by the words are sufficient conditions. However, I understand that "if zombies attach NYC" is the sufficient condition and "the market crash" is the necessary condition.

Is this a mistake or am I just reading it wrong?

I think it's because in 3.1, the last sentence offers an overall recommendation (which ultimately is the conclusion).

"But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution" is (in my opinion) a sub-conclusion OR even just contextual information to reach the conclusion that "..they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately"