@hawken109 I had repeated connectivity issues during the early sections of the test and it wasn't the issue of my wifi because the issue occurred again after I reset my wifi. I was able to quit and re-log into the test to resume according to the proctor's instruction - I wish you could've been able to do that so you wouldn't have to wait till next year for re-try.

RC was another level It might be my first time doing a reading and only knew the low-res. Even the low-res was very low. And one of the games was harder than usual

love this

I love this explanation better!

All we learned about attacking only the argument is still valid in this question. The argument here assumes that the only reason to qualify a person for an employee benefit is the purpose of the job (for this case, the purpose of TA job is providing needed money to TA v.s. the purpose of a university employee is different - maybe is to provide students consistent support - regardless, different purpose) and TA's purpose doesn't qualify them the benefit. Reading the stimulus, I thought of these two flaws: the argument assumes that the purpose of TA is different from employees (I mean don't almost all people work because they need the money?); or 2nd flaw, the argument ignores that there are other qualifiers for whether one gets benefits - maybe work hours and basic workers' rights, like those real-life arguments that"full-time Uber drivers should deserve employee benefit" arguments.

So C is right because it says, the university basically could replace faculties/full-time benefit qualifying employees with TA, implying that there is a similarity between TA and faculty since one could replace the other - which tackles the 1st flaw identified above.

it's the "we found a stone-age artifact.jpg" that got me