This is an interesting question! I actually answered this correctly and I thought I had it but when I saw the explanations they're saying it's a A(Ronda goes)> B(Paul goes)> C (Ted goes) that strikes me as strange! I saw unless, so I negated the sufficient and got (Ted doesn't go)>(Paul won't go) therefore Ronda won't go, which led me to the correct answer choice. My problem is that the A>B>C relationship, doesn't that essentially say B (Paul going) is sufficient for Ted to go, which isn't what the stimulus is saying?

Your three-sentence biography- I graduated last year (May 2015) from the University of Virginia. I have worked in international organizations along side many international lawyers/patent lawyers. Currently I am finishing my prep for the December LSAT (2016) and wish to apply for entrance to a law school of my choice during the 2017 cycle.

Your biggest worry about your application.

Although my cumulative GPA is above a 3.0, I still displayed a downward trend in the middle of my college career and then slightly upward towards the very end.

Two ideas for your personal statement.

-How I used overcame my anxiety/depression by rekindling some of my lost goals, for example attending law school.

-How a college discussion with a professor bolstered my interest offsetting the discrepancies within our judicial system.

Did you attend last time? Did I get to you?

Yes. No.