I don't understand anything I read. Can someone break this down better please?

#feedback

What is he meaning by "phenomenon"

#feedback

I got this question right and the reasoning behind why the other options of a,b, and c were wrong were different than his reasoning of why they were wrong. Is that fine?

also can someone explain better why that was his specific reasoning for being wrong? because I'm just not sure I understand the way he explained why each of those were wrong using his reasoning.

A. I said was wrong because "promote" stuck out to me. Just because someone is critizing their opponent doesn't necessarily mean they were intending to promote their political agenda they could be doing it just because they're mean and want to (it was to strong in a way for me).

B. I said was wrong because, in a way it was also to strong because how do we know if a critic is focusing their criticism on agendas that are being promoted in other ways besides "incomprehensible manner/muddled" which can be sincere rather than insincere.

C. I said was wrong because it has no relevance to the stimulus

#feedback

I'm still confused why the answer wasn't E over C. I know that E is strong because of the word "most" but the stimulus was strong in using the word "many" critics complaining of the disproportion between text and music...... (so on)

Whereas C just feels to weak when using the word "at least" when the stimulus is stating "many" critics complaining of that.

Can someone explain this better?

#feedback

I thought that the minor premise was the major premise/sub conclusion and that the major premise/sub conclusion was just a regular premise. Is this a problem? If so how do I fix that?

(I was 100% confident in my answer and got it right but I just want to make sure this confusion isn't an issue)

do we need to know when were taking the test what type of argument we are reading? such as (phenomenon followed by a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon or an argument that is making a prediction)?

Because we don't know all the types like he mentioned there is to many to know, so is that of an importance/would it help you get questions right or wrong if you do/don't know what type of argument it is?

#feedback

Should I be reading the context under each video even though I watched the video?

#feedback

I skipped foundations and came into LR because I'm on a timeline, is there any vital factors in foundations that I should watch before continuing in LR? (not the whole section please just tell me if there's something vital I should know) thank you so much!

#feedback

Can I just skip the foundations lessons and start on LR? has anyone done this and been fine? (Asking because I'm on a tight timeline)

#feedback

Can someone please explain better why question 6 is not an argument?

This is how I was thinking it would be for #6:

All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places. (conclusion)

Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked. (premises)

I'm still really confused on this question, even after watching the video I still don't understand it. Can someone please break this down better how they understood it?

Also are we only supposed to map out MUST BE TRUE questions? Or do we also map out other questions? if so what kind?

#feedback

Thank you Alex and Sashell!