I'm Interested!

I am in a really similar situation. I am signed up for both August and September but I am not quite at my goal score yet on my PTs. I think I have ultimately decided to follow through with the August test and regardless of my score, take it in September as well. I think psychologically for me, the stakes will feel lower each time. What I mean by that is for the August test, I will know that if I don't meet my goal, that I will have another chance with September. For September, I feel that if I see any improvement from my August score I will be happy. I have lived with myself long enough to know my needs, since I have always been a nervous test-taker. If you think that using August as a trial run will help you in your journey, I think you can easily explain that to admissions if your score falls short of your goal. However, I know some people that would feel even more nervous having a score they were unhappy with follow them into the admission cycle. I don't think you can go wrong with your choice, especially since you said you were willing to take the October test if you needed to. Good luck!

Does anyone understand 11.1, and can explain why the word "wrong " is left out of the kernel ?The sentences seems incomplete as just "Act is." The word "wrong" doesn't seem to be modifying the verb, and instead seems to be necessary for the kernel to make sense.

I am confused about the sub sub-conclusion in 5.5, where it says "Safety of this lifesaving drug poses a pan country mortality risk."

What makes this a "sub sub-conclusion" and not a premise for "Maintenance of medicine stock even at exorbitant expense remains indisputably worthy." ?

#help So I'm slightly confused on what we mean by "the other idea is the sufficient." This may be obvious, but it's genuinely been tripping me up.

So it is necessary that:

ADP- /A and A- /ADP

This is because we cannot say that if you are not American, then you attended the party (ie: /A- ADP) because that may not be true. We do not know if every person in the world with a different nationality has attended the party or not. We just know that no Americans attended.

But if that argument is not valid, then why is it the sufficient idea? Is it because we would have to know that everyone who is not American did in fact attend the party to make the argument sufficient? So is J.Y.'s point that this is a necessary condition and not a valid sufficient condition?