Absolutely brutal.

The first part of that is off: local should be the outer circle with national being the inner circle. But the rest of your explanation sounds right! Whatever entity is entailing the other entity is by definition the "inner circle"

#9 E is also wrong because we don't know that the research was "designed to confirm the usefulness of stealing thunder," in fact, we're told that no research has yet to directly test it. So E is actually descriptively inaccurate. I think I stopped reading after that point.

I totally agree. I don't get how we're given any explanation. Saying that a thing is hard to model mathematically and then saying that it is difficult to do so is redundant/circular. I don't see how we're given any kind of explanation. JY emphasizes that the answer to why it is difficult is because it is hard to mathematically model but that seems circular. #help

#help would also like to know

That sounds like an awful experience but that's no excuse to make racist comments and low key disparage people who aren't scoring 170+....

The flex exams don't count toward your yearly limit FYI! So you have another 3 opportunities to take the exam

Dirty. This question did me dirty. Who knew at #8 this would happen?

Whole heartedly agree. That is why AC C is wrong. Because the stimulus is not drawing an analogy between information processed by the brain and computers. The literal first sentence says "taken as a whole, computers..." so the stimulus isn't making this analogy at all. It is about the difference between the types of information but rather about the structure of computer growth and brain growth.

TLDR; The answer is the latter question - they both support the conclusion (directly) but need to be taken together.

So there's a key difference between your example and what we see in this question.

Example: P1 nor P2 independently support the conclusion. Together they directly support the conclusion. Independent of one another, neither premise allows you to draw the conclusion that Many wizards have orange hair. Why? Because with P2 alone we don't know that wizards can perform transfiguration. So we also don't know that many wizards must have orange hair. With P1 alone, we have no clue about the connection between being able to perform transfiguration and having orange hair.

With this stimulus/passage: P2 independently supports the conclusion. Imagine we had an argument w/o P1 where we're just told that heavy industrial activity (characteristic of coal mining) would force most local businesses to close. Then we're given the conclusion that we can expect the overall number of jobs to decrease if heavy industrial activity is permitted. That is an argument. That premise absolutely supports the conclusion and doesn't need additional support necessary. There's no need for the addition of P1 + P2 to make the conclusion make sense. P2 alone would suffice.

However, with P1 alone, you're in a situation where that premise does not independently support the conclusion. Based on that just that premise we still don't know why jobs would decrease overall. [Which is similar to the example you gave where neither of the premises independently prove the conclusion]

I've absolutely been feeling this and I think it is just important to be kind to yourself and give yourself some grace. Like everyone else said, taking breaks is key. I've found myself really motivated to study during weird times when I wasn't planning on studying (like at night on a Saturday) and I've jumped on those opportunities and tried to focus then. Similarly, there are times when I know my brain is foggy and I'm just not "in" it so instead of sitting there trying to slog through for hours, I've gone for a run or said f-it and stopped for the day. I then do things I enjoy or prioritize random tasks and errands that I was planning on doing later in the week. Then, when the time comes later in the week, I literally have nothing else to do or even think about except to study. Hope this helps! Just know you're definitely not alone. I have definitely shed a few tears as I struggle through the same thing :)

#help I'm really struggling with this question. Initially I chose AC D because my thought was that maybe the CEO, chief engineer, and other important people are necessary to ensure high production and if they were to be fired then production would decrease. Then, in BR I chose AC E because the stimulus talks about the ways in which the number of people who show up to work on a given day is a function of the production rate, not the number of people employed overall. And so I thought this AC was descriptively accurate. My thinking was maybe the total number of employees is important for morale because even though 10 are missing on an average day, having those 10 as backups or "subs" gives the workers at the plant a break. maybe they all miss the same days each year and rotate being absent and that absence maintains productivity by maintaining morale. I now get the reasoning behind B but that AC by no means was clear to me.

I'm also wondering about being able to talk out loud and really be in conversation with yourself. It seems like we should be allowed to do so but maybe it would be viewed as giving us an unfair advantage?

I'd like to join! sdanielsnds@68748.com

Yes it is an assumption, but as JY states in the explanation videos, there are small assumptions we might have to make in MSS questions. The assumption that requires us to accept the phrase "in part" (ie: the assumption that there are other factors that help a writer convey meaning) is smaller than the assumptions we would have to make in order to accept any of the other answer choices.