In the written explanation of the question, the last paragraph states, "Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be understood."

When in fact it should be: Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be MISunderstood.

That is what answer E is stating. Alternatively, change the 'cannot' to 'can' and leave the other as understood.

Unless I'm wrong, if so I'm sure someone will point it out, I'm doing this early in the morning with no coffee where I am.

#feedback

In Q4, the statement "When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention."

When I looked at the word 'them', my first thought was that it referred to editorialists, not personal attacks. Does the referential always refer to a concept within the subject of the sentence, if not, how would I better draw this linkage?

I look at answer A and it says "efficiently" in the answer. Doesn't this imply that in both studies that Beta Carotene is taken in by the human body? In the 24 year study it is taken in better than in the 12 year study, but it is taken in during the 12 year study less efficiently. The explanation given for answer A states that in the 12 year study the Beta Carotene was not taken in. This is a mistake imho. It still has relevance if you attribute efficiency of Beta Carotene uptake as a link to low cancer levels, but this does not imply that Beta Carotene in the 12 year study was not taken in as the explanation indicates.

#feedback

I don't see how these new arguments fit into the pattern as the previous exercises before the updates this past weekend. The lesson immediately prior to this shows minor premises and how a sub-conclusion can be a Major Premise. This exercise does not seem to carry that thread like the previous exercise that held this space.

A question about the stimulus, the first sentence is a conclusion, the following are the premises that support it. The last sentence seems to restate the conclusion initially spelled out with some finer details such as putting in the modifier of economically, is there any way to point to which sentence is the true conclusion?

Does it remain that the Force is the necessary condition always, in that contrapositive relation? I just internalized that the left side of the arrow is the sufficient condition and the term on the right is the necessary, but when flipped in a contrapositive it seems like the necessary condition remains, i.e. in the argument /F --> /J, I read this as /F as the sufficient condition in this case, but the narrative above does not make that distinction clear for me at least, if someone knows can they clarify?

The concept of winning is eluding me. In question 4 the instruments that are needed 'wins' the argument? Why is that based on the context, just because a condition such as - having more advanced instruments - is required for the condition to be met in the sentence does that imply a win?

At least one of these skill builders should be placed between the lessons to cement the few skills learned and to not bunch up the skill practice like it is currently situated.

There should be exercises that take prescriptive conclusion and/or premise and turn them into conditionals. Also, there should be exercises where the judgement on how to do this is validated by the context in which it is used. That would help cement this concept.

#feedback

Link at bottom of the page that links to "Fact v. Belief. v. Knowledge" is broken, I receive a 404 page not found. I can't explicitly recall doing this lesson, so I hoped to brush up on it, in case it was a lesson I completed early on in my study cycle, I will go manually hunting for the topic.

#feedback