I think of "advanced" as "how does the argument play out?". You're right that identifying obstacles doesn't support the argument directly, but it's a way that the author fleshes out the argument with detail. Most arguments aren't packed exclusively with supporting statements -- they acknowledge counter-arguments, concede points, add tangential exposition, etc. Your job in these questions therefore is to identify these moves the author is making as they lay out their argument.

I also felt pretty timid about rejecting E at first! My thinking here is that, since JY says to be overly aggressive, we should be absolutely ruthless about the words "persuasive writing" in answer choice E. If Passage A is so concerned with historical objectivity, the author would likely say that writing about the historical truth is not persuasive in any way -- it is just stating facts. When I say the War of 1812 happened, I'm not trying to convince a skeptic that it took place; I'm just asserting the truth. So an objective historian, as Passage A describes, would not describe themselves as writing persuasively, making answer choice E wrong.

As for "tend to be propagandists", this is tricky because the author is saying that objective historians should never be propagandists, while answer choice D says that historians in general tend to be propagandists. Essentially, there's some historians who just blindly repeat political propaganda at the time, and the author says an ideal objective historian should never do that, so they bring up those propagandists as an example of something to not do. This is exactly what the author is doing in the passage, which makes D correct.

I think the last sentence is a minor conclusion and the first is a major conclusion, so you're right that they are both conclusions of some sort. You know which is the "true", or major conclusion by asking yourself "so what?". In this case, using students as pawns is unfair and works against us. So what? So pushing students into rigorous study does more harm than good. It's a good rule of thumb here that the more specific a sentence is, the more likely its a premise or explanation that builds to a larger conclusion. Hopefully this helps!

Totally second this feedback! How I work around this is clicking the "+ Quick View" button above the video which pops up the question and answers, then attempting the problem on my own before pressing play on the video. If you haven't tried this yet, this might be a good workaround for your problem.

#feedback It's not clear with how this lesson is written whether or not "It's not the case that all dogs are friendly" can include the possibility that "No dogs are friendly". Translating it into "some dogs are not friendly" would exclude "no dogs are friendly", since we learned earlier that "some" has a lower boundary of 1. However, from a common sense perspective, it seems to me that "it's not the case..." should include the possibility that "no dogs are friendly".

Question 5 says "fewer than most", which means everything under 50%. But "some" has no clear upper boundary and can include all (i.e. 1-100%). So it would be imprecise to say (for the LSAT) that some kittens went home with children because it overincludes what the original statement is trying to say.