I loved it!! Makes it seem like all of this studying is going to be worth it one day.

Also loved the cliffhanger, lol

I spent like 5 mins trying to figure out what the heck they were saying, and ended up getting it right in blind review.

I broke it down into really simple facts: During a typical week, people who work in the office/outside the home spend less time preparing dinner than adults who WFH. But dinners eaten at home by both groups don't show that much of a difference in nutrition, the variety of food and number of courses.

One thing that I missed on my first go-around with this is that they are talking about two different things in the background and the mystery. The background is talking about preparing dinner, but the mystery is about eating dinner.

E - wrong since it makes the mystery worse. It really doesn't say anything about how the two groups could be the same. By saying that the outside the home workers are less likely to even plan out their meals makes it less likely that they are able to keep up with the WFH groups. We want something that points to a similarity between the groups or makes it make sense why the outside the home group spends less time preparing dinner.

D - I really had to sit with this one to understand why it is right, but it explains why the outside the home folks spend less time preparing dinner but have similar specs than the work from home folks. I had to basically ignore the percentage and just focus on what it was saying, which made it all click.

Imagine that I go to an office every day, but my partner works from home. I go and get dinner with my coworkers once a week. Because I am not preparing dinner at home once a week, the overall time that week I spend less time preparing dinner is less than my partner who is making dinner every night at home. The dinners that I do eat, we can assume, are not that different from the dinners that my partner eats, and even though I go out to dinner once a week, I could still prepare food almost as much as my partner (perhaps if I make a really complicated meal one night).

I'm surprised this isn't a level 5 question, lol!

For RRE questions, is it ok if the AC is more generalized in linking the two ideas?

I didn't pick E because I read "susceptibility to infection" as being too vague - to me it didn't prove specifically that the rate of serious infections was going up. But looking back at it, the infections that they are talking about could include a serious one.

Was a double wrong for me and a difficult one, but now I get why B is right!

A - incorrect since it discusses a different subset of people than what the stimulus does. Browing the web for medical information is different than relying on the web for medical information. I could google "why does my thigh hurt" and see information on numerous different diagnoses then move on with my day after popping some ibuprofen - that is different than someone who googles the same thing and is immediately like "I have a blockage" and doesn't even think about seeing a doctor.

E - incorrect since the author never says that relying on quackery information is necessary for people to cause themselves more harm than good by attempting to diagnose themselves. The "only if" is a little strong. However, if it was a different conditional ("if people rely on quackery instead of scientifically valid information, they will do themselves more harm than good") matches a lot more with what the author is saying - that people who rely on the web while trying to attempt their medical issue are likely to hurt than help themselves.

B - correct since we can read this as a conditional to make it easier! When seeing "unless", you negate the following idea (add "not) and make it the sufficient. So, this AC would read "if people do not rely exclusively on scientific valid information, they are likely to do themselves more harm than good." The author has to agree with that statement, since their whole argument is that people on the web cant tell the difference between valid and nonvalid scientific information, so they will likely hurt themselves if they try to go searching to diagnose their medical condition.

Negate that, and it becomes "even if people do not exclusively rely on scientific information, they are not likely to do themselves more harm than good" which tears apart the authors argument by saying that people could still go with the nonvalid information and that doesn't guarantee they will hurt themselves.

These games have been such a gamechanger and have taken place of doomscrolling during my work commute, in the car, etc! It makes me feel like I'm doing something that will help my skills when I dont have the time/brain capacity for actual questions!

Please continue to add new games!