I think it finally clicked for me on how to break down the stimuli. Not surprisingly, but I really tried to focus on how the narrator breaks down the stimuli (identifying structure and grammar) in a way that kind of mimics him. Talked to myself about why each word or phrase matters and who supports who. Saw the "thus" and almost went for it because well, it was the trap. But I always try to question myself, "okay is that really the conclusion?" and just glance over the rest of the stimuli to confirm my guess. I reminded myself to check each phrases structure and identify its importance (p or another c, or if it was a p, and another p). Which allowed me to figure out why the "wise" part was the main conc, and then used referential phrasing to answer A. Note it was a bit time consuming to break it down like that but it helped.

@QarimatOgunneye I realized that right now as well. I knew it was going to be a premise to explain why, so I read on to confirm the structure of it, but then got confused by the last premise. Noted to stick with gut sometimes.

@Lawlow oop nevermind. figured it out.

Is anybody able to download this to a PDF? It gives the option to, but for some reason, it's giving an error pop-up

@Jimmy Crosby Malanda yes you're making sense and in fact correct. I just finished the lesson - if there is possibly two conclusions, which are then supported by their own premises, then the first conclusion will be the sub-conclusion which ultimately also supports the main conclusion

This might be obvious, but a "claim" is a statement (premise)? Correct? So if the conclusion claim supports the premise claim, then that means the conclusion is more likely to be true? Because the premise can only pitch the claim, and the conclusion can only support the claim.

Oof, I needed to read this. Thank you!