diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex b/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex
index 0cf7ae2..8e04121 100644
--- a/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex
+++ b/submission_thesis/CH7_Evaluation/copy.tex
@@ -1193,7 +1193,10 @@ This would make it seemingly impossible to model as  `unitary state'.
 There are two ways in which we can deal with this.
 We could consider the component a composite
 of two simpler components, and model their interaction to
-create a derived component.
+create a derived component (i.e. use FMMD on the simpler components).
+The second way to do this would be to consider the combnations of non-mutually
+exclusive {\fms} as new {\fms}: this approach is discussed below.
+
 \ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
 {
 This technique is outside the scope of this paper.
@@ -1211,8 +1214,8 @@ This technique is outside the scope of this paper.
 \end{figure}
 
 \paragraph{Combinations become new failure modes.}
-Alternatively, we could consider the combinations
-of the failure modes as new failure modes.
+We could consider the combinations
+of the non-mutually exclusive failure modes as new failure modes.
 We can model this using an Euler diagram representation of
 an example component with three failure modes\footnote{OK is really the empty set, but the term OK is more meaningful in
 the context of component failure modes} $\{ B_1, B_2, B_3, OK \}$ see figure \ref{fig:combco}.