#5 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Parallel

[Adam Tyson]

I'd put it this way, H714W7: the Court wasn't incoherent, because the author had no trouble understanding what they said. "Conceptual incoherence" sounds to me like some concept that just cannot be understood, as opposed to this case, where the concept is clear but seems to be lacking in a rational justification.

And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the Court didn't draw a distinction at all. Instead, they blurred the lines by treating two different things (private action on the one hand, State action on the other) as if they were the same. Answer A reads to me like the author would have been saying "I can't understand how you ended up deciding those things were different." But in fact, it's more like "I'm confused about how you managed to treat those two different things as if they were the same." And ultimately, the author wasn't actually confused at all; they just disagreed with the approach taken by the Court.

[cjtoon]

This question is classified as Parallel, but would this not be a Specific Reference - Must be True, Purpose question? Since it is asking us why the author used a specific phrase? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, thanks!

[Dana D]

This question is classified as Parallel, but would this not be a Specific Reference - Must be True, Purpose question? Since it is asking us why the author used a specific phrase? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, thanks!

Hey CJ,

You're right, thanks for flagging that!