The first example is a sufficient assumption, not a necessary assumption.

For me when I went through, a better indicator of whether it was an SA or NA was:

NA: necessary, requires, depends; asks about argument

SA: properly drawn, follows logically, properly inferred; asks about conclusion

SA basically always about about the conclusion being drawn, whereas NA asks about the argument.

If you go back through with these things in mind, you'll notice that all of the questions with necessary, required, depends are asking about the argument, and that those are always NA questions. (And same for the other indicator words with the SA questions!)

Also check that the quantifiers match and in the correct order! If they are using different quantifiers or in the wrong order, it seems like you can eliminate it quickly.

For example all-most-most argument is invalid, but most-all-most IS valid. It's a super small difference and would probably be very nuanced/easy to overlook in an answer choice, but depending on what the stimulus is -- catching something like that could be the difference between right and wrong.

(I think one of the first couple lessons in this module touched on the most arrow and how where it falls determines if the argument is valid or invalid.

As part of my shallow dip, I'm going through with the highlighter and highlighting any quantifiers I see (when the stim uses quantifiers). This makes it so much easier to identify the argument structure quickly

I'm pretty sure by "skip" he means make a guess and move on, not skip it and leave it blank!

If you hit the little Quick View button with the + inside the magnifying glass, you can see the question and answers! I think this was a recent update though, because I don't remember seeing it last week.

The stimulus is basically saying that throat damage and snoring happen together.

Then it says, actually, not only do they just go together, but snoring CAUSES the throat damage.

So, they're not just coincidentally happening at the same time, but they're happening at the same time because one is making the other happen.

Obviously, this argument is pretty weak. The info they gave in the premise is not really enough to convince us to believe that snoring is the cause of the damage. You can probably think of some other explanations for why this is the case. In the weakening questions from the lesson before, we are essentially poking holes in the conclusion the stimulus reached/the reasoning it used to get to the conclusion. We did this by being like "uh, no, actually, this other thing could've happened" (an alternate explanation.

In strengthening questions, you can think of the right answer as basically "poking holes in your poked holes".

You're trying to come up with a wannabe possible explanation to show that mine is wrong? We'll I'll raise you one and come up an explanation that absolutely shits all over your wannabe explanation so mine is still the best one. Take that. (For some reason I'm picturing this in my head as like a cliche schoolyard brawl haha, but it kind of helps to personify the question type and what the correct answers are trying to do).

So, to answer your question, E strengthens the stimulus by increasing the likelihood that the conclusion reached in the stimulus (that snoring causes the damage). It does this by poking a hole in the potential wannabe explanation (that the damage causes snoring) by showing that actually, damage DOESN'T cause snoring, cuz these people still snored EVEN AFTER getting their damage fixed.

Hope this helped!

There's at least 1 lesson later on about how to use blind review, so I'd suggest going to the overall syllabus and going through that one. Not sure why it's not earlier tbh. But here's the TL;DR of it:

Blind review can be helpful in figuring out what you know and what you don't know.

The way 7Sage recommends doing blind review is like this: Take the dill/PT once with the time constraints, then go back around and take it a second time without the time constraints (unlimited time).

Comparing your results can elicit valuable insights.

You will likely see that you get more questions correct the second time around than you did the first. If it is the case that you got a question wrong on your first go but right on your second go, you might conclude that you have the underlying logical reasoning down, so something went wrong on the "surface level" (maybe a reading mistake, you rushed, ran out of time, etc.)

If you got a question wrong BOTH times around, then you can conclude that you don't have a great grasp on the question fundamentally and need to spend more time on it or questions like it. Maybe you misunderstood what you were supposed to do, misidentified the conclusion, the language tripped you up, etc.

My suggestions for how and why to blind review:

Realistically, blind reviewing 100% of the drills and PTs you take may not always be realistic, because it does require a lot more time. So sometimes I will only go back and BR the ones I flagged the first time around.

(Side note: Once you see your results, your #1 priority for questions to review are ones you got wrong and didn't even flag - that shows it wasn't even on your radar as a potential wrong one).

I usually don't blind review drills but DO blind review practice tests. It is such a pain because it turns a 2 hour test into a 4 hour test, but I think the payoff is worth it. Once you get to the study stage of taking 1+ PTs/week, I'd suggest setting aside 1 day where all you do it take a PT and then BR, no studying. Then review the wrong answers the next day.

It can be so demoralizing to study really hard and see that my score hasn't gone up much. But my blind review score is always higher than my 1st score, and it's so helpful for keeping me hopeful and determined. It shows me that I CAN do it and I CAN get these questions right. It pushes me to try to get my BR score on my first time around.

Why does the for/since/because lesson come after this practice? It seems out of order to have us practice on these types of sentences before telling us what they are. It was a little frustrating for me the first few because/since practcice examples because I got them wrong and then spent a while trying to figure out on my own what I misunderstood before continuing the practice qs. Then once I get to the next lesson, it explains exactly my issue it pretty clearly. Would have loved to know this info before working on the practice as it would have saved me a little time and mental energy!