It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Okay so I can see why E could be the correct answer. But I just wasn't sure whether there was both government inaction (maybe the government is just but they are acting) and he did everything in good faith.
I chose B. I took a contrapositive of the principle and it seemed to fit. Maybe that's not the right thing to do, but I was between B and E and I wasn't sure about E.
Comments
I think you just over complicated eliminating B. The answer choice needs to match the group leaders principles two qualities 1. take the steps to comply 2. be met with government inaction.
B- The principle states that there needs to be inaction but says the zoning board clearly made an action to restrict the construction of the bowling alley, contradicting the first part of the principle.For this to be a proper contrapositive she would need to not be acting in good faith as well to match the contraposed logic structure. Bowling alley/secret fight club maybe instead of positive recreational impact.
Good faith -> Met with Inaction -> Do it
Con:
Do it->Met with Inaction->Good FaithE - No legal action taken against the physician = inaction. Met all the requirements to practice = good faith. Meets both requirements so this is a 100% match.
Good faith -> Met with Inaction -> Did it
Definitely a strange and wordy early LR question
@Frenchy This was lovely. Thank you for the break down. I know that I definitely overcomplicate things, but this was so helpful in helping understand!