A is very unclear, whats something called "criteria"? and how to evaluate efficiency and time management skills, and how you know the outcomes are unfair. To be specific, how anybody know using the same criteria means the efficiency and time management skills are the same??Using the same criteria doesn't means that the results are useless.

And D, is anyone sure that middle-level managers are not efficient ? as I see, the so called "middle-level" is just a management concept inside a company and has nothing to do the abilities of a manager. So, I have to change my minds totally to believe that "the most efficient managers" are imcompatible with "middle-level" managers. Is there any chance that some "middle-level" managers in a company are on the most efficient list?

After this disaster thinking process, I figure out that this is a "weaken" question, everything that can weaken the support should be right. A seems blur, but somehow I can feel it push the whole support down without the consideration of the actual reasons. JUST FEEL IT!

As for D, the only way is to accept "middle level" is something about efficiency, so D is irrelevant with the support.

the real problem is that you have to understand "preexisting state of health"="sick less often"

I made several mistakes on PF questions for it is hard for me to conclude the flaws into several words or a certain standard; in addition to this, I had to understand the answers, for example, what the hell is c even mean, how a phenomenon like this could stand, the flaw in c is too big for me to choose because I think the huge erroneous (actually no) connection between the first and second short sentence is obviously bigger than the flaws in the main part. I think these are the two barriers I have to overcome.

The reason for b is my first choice because I thought that the insurgent party do not have to settle these disagreements. Because, at the time this lecture happened, they had not gotten the dominant position, how could we be sure that the disagreements from other parties may lead to the dominant party losing their position?? HOWEVER, once I accept b as the right choice, I suddenly found out that my explanation is not that reasonable.

I consider this in another way

1.purpose is provide legal peotection

2.suggest illegal--no protection

3.no purpose

so

suggest illegal is the only occassion when provide protection

or

cannot provide protection for any other reasons except suggest illegal

so A

The hardest part for me to explain D is the answer: if the answer is "yes", the hypothetical business would fall into the scope from "middle" to "big" which means it cannot be affected by new policy; however, if the answer is "no", the hypothetical business must be no bigger than "middle" and is possible to be in the scope from " small" to "middle" whereby new policy can make influence on hypothetical business.

I'm interested

i think JY even wanna smile when explaning the asking sentence

when i see "20:20", really cannot believe my eye

why this question difficulty is just three stars