#help, I thought group 4 has a last step after negating one idea. Why wouldn't it be C>/T and then contrapositive to T>/C. Then with the P>T, it would chain as P>T>/C

For question 26, I don't see how the explanation for E is accurate. The explanation says "The purpose of the Act doesn’t implement the principle of rectification, because it doesn’t concern attempts to get land back. It concerns prohibiting certain kinds of land transfers. In order for the Act to implement the principle of rectification, it would have to give the Native Americans their stolen land back." Where I become confused is with the last sentence in passage B that says "But the original wrong can most easily be righted by returning the land to them—or by returning it wherever that is feasible." Passage B is saying that this wrong could be made right by giving them the land back, in which the principle of rectification would be utilized. I am sure I am missing a broader understanding, but this does not make sense to me.

#help I have rewatched J.Y. explanation multiple times, and I still cannot figure out how B could cause C instead of it does cause it.

These last few "you- try's" have been more than difficult. You would think after using the same type of logic that it would translate into making these easier, but it hasn't. I think a change to this part of the curriculum is necessary. Putting this tough of questions at the beginning of the section with little to no help from the explanations (as I've seen from the discussion board) warrants a revision. This SA section is rough in and of itself.

Help!

For 22, I chose E because of the first sentence of the last paragraph. To me, the author is acknowledging that while it might be possible, does it ever occur? This evidence is circumstantial and speculative, therefore lacking any scientific rigor. How is it D if he explicitly acknowledges it's potential possibility, but doubt because of a lack of evidence.