@lucas.guyton52704 We'll start to see patterns with more practice, I'm sure. (Relating fully with your frustration but trying to keep the faith)

I wonder if there's a way to practice just valid inferences from the stimuli. Like flashcards or something with examples.

Is it safe to always interpret "can/capable of" and "~actually~ do/done" as synonymous for the purpose of chaining conditional arguments? (from Pokemon question). In any other context, I would assume that being capable of evolving and actually evolving are two different stories.

Question for a 7Sage instructor (but happy to have input from others as well!):

7Sage keeps referencing "cultivating habits" like fleshing out referentials, setting aside modifiers to see the passage's core structure, identifying what is being compared, how it is being compares, and which thing wins in comparisons, but I'm unsure of which habits/exercises, if any, you actually want us to be doing on paper as we work through questions in the hopes of getting the right answer.

In other words, can you please explicitly share with us what we should be writing down when we answer these questions? I want to know because, of course, in a perfect non-time-constrained world, we would embrace all of these habits by fleshing out every passage's complexity in every possible way. And maybe, in the beginning, you would like us to? But it is helpful for me to hear whether any of these exercises/habits are actually worthwhile (time-wise) to be jotting down on test day.

Everyone thinks/works differently so I understand that is difficult to broadly advise us, but please let me know of your thoughts. Thank you so much!!

On the Spectrum of Support, I see that "unsupported" is on the far right with the "weak arguments". I thought that the definition of an argument is premise + conclusion (a statement that SUPPORTS another statement and a statement that IS SUPPORTED by another statement). So, how can "unsupported" be an option as an argument?

Relatedly, could you please tell me whether the following is an argument:

"Dalmations have spots. Therefore, my dog must be a Dalmation."

I ask because this seems like an example of an unsupported argument, if such a thing exists. The writer has a clear message ("My dog is a Dalmation"), but the previous statement doesn't really support the conclusion. If we make a ton of unreasonable assumptions (my dog has spots, the only dogs with spots are Dalmatians, etc.), the first statement can be considered a premise but that feels wrong.

But what if the kid didn't know the cookie jar was "forbidden"? Nowhere does it say that the kid KNEW/SUSPECTED that this particular action was forbidden, even if he knows that, GENERALLY, forbidden actions without permission are wrong.

I guess the takeaway is that it IS an argument, but is not a STRONG argument. The fact that the kid took the "forbidden cookie" without permission coupled with the fact that he knows forbidden actions without permission are wrong makes it MORE LIKELY (but not CERTAIN) that the kid knows he did something wrong ... right?