Finally a 100% on a drill - feels good :) hope that I needed!

Is it correct that some elements of the conclusion need to be in the answer for an NA question? LIke the answer needed to mention rocks right?

Just now realizing the answer doesn't need to be necessary -- it just needs to be sufficient w. these SA questions --- I avoided B bc I was thinking that doesn't need to be the case to make the conclusion true! I think I'd like to go back and do these trial questions over again in a week with this new perspective... hope it helps because I've been in struggle city.

sufficient assumption is the worst.

I assumed the folks attempting to manipulate the markets were the same well-informed traders who made a profit. I feel like the answer to this question depends on the assumption that these are two distinct groups. Otherwise, if folks are using market manipulation to successfully make a profit, that is way closer to Passage B.

Curious of the response to this! I wish the exam were in written form... even if we take the test at a center, it is still on a computer right?

Assuming that an event cannot occur simply because it hadn't occurred in the past.

One of the first ones where I second guessed a correct answer on blind review.. sad.

Also interested in the DC group!

I wish all of them were like this :)

#feedback

If B said "leaving a parking space..." would it be the right answer? Then it would just be flat our saying the hypothesis in the stimulus was wrong, making it the correct choice right?

#feedback I think there is the flaw in the diagramming as well--- it's not a →b‑m→c, it's a→b and [superset of a] ‑m→ c

Well, between first try and blind review, I got each question right at least once... I guess I'll take that as a win!

I am really loving the ctrl f function when doing many of these stated questions - are there any perils to this or could this be a fine strategy if I practice it?