I feel obligated to say something about separating hyperplanes.

A nuance is that the design (and response) frames these questions as "training" subjects rather than testing their comprehension. Subjects did questions repeatedly and saw answers. 75% then doesn't seem so egregious to me. I would care more about responses to a final comprehension question.

For those interested, here is an initial response from Ryan:
www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/005uy...

This is exactly what the paper should be reporting! This aid was determined by a law last year. It is not discretionary, and withholding such funds was the reason for Trump’s first impeachment. He is very much breaking the law, and it’s being reported as if it’s up to his judgment.

It's (beyond) immoral. What though makes it illegal? Is it beyond the scope of executive power? (Genuine question.)