Like many other comments, I was not a big fan of AC E because of the word "implausible." But strictly speaking, "implausible" means "not likely or probable", which is synonymous with the underlying logic in the rhetorical question that says absolutely NO enforcement of parking is "unimaginable." If something is unimaginable, it makes sense to call it implausible. At least that's how I reconciled with AC E... but still, stfu bauer !!!

Um it's kinda difficult on my end to understand what this means although i got most questions in this section right. Can anyone "translate" what they mean? Esp what does it mean by there aren't others??? Conditional logic baits Stating a necessary condition doesn't mean there aren't others. Stating a sufficient condition doesn't mean there aren't others.

then for Answer choice B, if in another world, we have gotten the relationship Ln -> disease free can we make it contraspositive: /diseasefree -> /Ln, which makes Wally the Ln?

@auspicious octopus

I had the same question. I was super hesitant towards D (and also B) and crossed them out at first because I couldn't see how it demonstrated the bad causal logic present in the stimulus. How is "insisting that workers who filed complaints did not have enough to do so" the same as "insisting that not having enough to do causes them to file complaints"?

Do parallel flaw correct ACs enjoy a leeway in their parallel-ness that parallel reasoning ACs don't? I was trying to match everything bit by bit, which really messed me up.

#help