I got it E right within the time - I think the phrasing is a bit confusing, but the way I see it, E is right because the argument attacks the proposing politician on the basis of their own previous actions. But forgets that yeah just because they received funds themselves in the past, doesn't mean they can do something ethically to prevent this from happening in the future. We can't just target the guy for taking previous monies, if his entire proposal is to change that. To me it seems like the politician is aware of the issue since he's gotten funds before, so he wants to change that and going forward all future politicians will not have the possibility of this ethical issue/conflict of interest. So the author just looks at the past, but doesn't realize the intention is to avoid what that own politician did so that others do not. So that is how I got E.

lololol

have a separate notebook based on my own short comings, i write notes based on what I see I am lacking in. So if I tend to read fast and miss a few words, I tend to focus on words that I often overlook and make note of examples of those, etc.

You are forgetting that there are 2 triggers that would pull the conclusion, when they refer to anyone - yes it could also include "you" (the target), but its not enough to make the trigger happen. However, the 2nd half when discussing that the belief that it would harm someone, that significantly triggers as its the only answer out of the others to actual state that harm could happen to "you" (the target) and NOT anyone randomly. We need it to happen to you, thats why its wrong the play the joke. Not just anyone. Does that make sense? Lmk if that makes sense, that's how I got the question right.

I had the same issue, but then realized that you have to click on the tiny "quick view (+)" tab and it opens up the question in full. So I do that now, try it out and then see the explanation. Before the explanation video, I do recommend spending 5 minutes on each answer choice and think why is this wrong or why is this "maybe right"? Then you'll get the logic from the explanation video more, instead of it coming from "left field" or even thinking "how did he conclude that from this, etc.."

i did the same thing!! ahhh

im like the inference is that the main street location is the walnut location, so pat is obvi a member that rented less than 10 videos

-here i go again, not reading correctly :(

4/5 right, the one i got wrong was about industrialist and i had the correct answer initially but in blind review i talked myself out of it lololol i need to trust myself more!

ahhh samee ughhh

is it possible to fix the beginning of each of these videos to show the stimulus/passage and the answer choices altogether, so we can pause the video there to try the questions on our own first and then continue with the video to see the reasoning behind the answers. I wanted to find the answer A on my own, but the video hides the answer choices and presents you with answer first, which is nice. But this doesn't give me a chance to try on my own with this question, so I could come to my own conclusion first and see why its right or wrong. Just a suggestion!