Why can't all the claims be chained if they're dependent on each other (e.g. can't have one "without" the other)? I chained them like this:
Pursuing good life > integrity > freedom > law
...and got the correct answer by running contrapositive:
no law > no freedom > no integrity > no pursuing good life
Did I just get lucky?
When on my laptop none of the videos show the time in the play bar. They all just stay at 0:00. It would be helpful to know how long the video is before diving in. Also would be helpful to note time point of something you want to revisit so you can easily find it again without having to scan through the videos
'who cares about other companies' is why I figured A wasn't correct :/
wondering the same- would be a great time saver if so!
Well apparently, it's a Google docs link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kf-lyNIXT-NH4O8QSvIudtcI3_SHpWBEHfpJEYlW7ug/edit?usp=sharing
Anyone else not seeing anything besides "block.opendns.com refused to connect"?
Same here, but after carefully re-reading I can see those bastards intentionally used "out of province" to trick us.
AC says ...savings of $600M in ITS out of province expenditures... "its" referring to the province and 'OOP' being an intentionally tricky category of expenditure. For ex, if instead this said:
Province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600M in its education expenditures.
It becomes clear the AC is talking about the province itself.
I think another issue is the AC language "more efficient alternative". The stem only says the alternative is "significantly faster" which doesn't equate to efficient. Even if alternative is faster, it could still be completely inefficient.