I just am having a hard time understanding when it's okay to make inferences.

I don't fully understand how by saying that "cable can also offer lower advertising rates than any broadcast network can, because it is subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees" means that we can infer that broadcasts are not subsidized?

We have always been taught not to make assumptions (especially in the Foundations module), so this just doesn't make sense to me.

I am having so much trouble linking the premises and conclusion for these SA questions. Can anyone share any strategies they have used?

I have been getting all these questions right so far (and often within the time margin), but find that I am not really able to identify minor vs. major premises and tend to ignore sub-conclusions.

I usually just look for the main conclusion within the stimulus. Is this a bad approach?

what kind of flaw is this

anyone have any tips for how to spot equivocation errors on tough questions like this one?

i honestly feel like the reason i am getting all these RC questions correct is because Kevin explained the passage so well...gonna need to bring him to my test

When doing weakening questions, I always say to myself to look for the answer choice that if used as the conclusion instead, makes the argument a lot stronger.

Does anyone have a sort of tactic/question like this that they ask for strengthening questions? I am having a lot of trouble.

I am having trouble understanding what it means to "weaken" the reasoning. I know it means weakening the support, but am just confused how that would appear in this kind of question. Is it essentially asking which answer choice is a stronger alternative to the conclusion given in the question?

2 of the questions that appeared in this drill were ones I had already seen in this module. Please fix this #feedback

Hi, just to clarify, are you able to rule out B and C since they compare a quality of bug zappers that is not mentioned at all in the stimulus?