I am in a similar situation (without the baby!). I have been on 7 Sage for over two years, also on and off. When I returned this last time, I went through the CC again but very quickly. I found that very helpful, because returning to the foundations after sometime away helped me cement some of the concepts. (For example, I thought I understood premise and conclusion, but I was mistaken!)

I'm still kind of between the CC and PTs. I refer to this webinar often to determine how to proceed: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/post-core-curriculum-study-strategies/

It breaks the post-CC approach into three stages.

Best of luck!

I discounted (C) because I felt that the assumption that, in order to operate a machine designed for experts, you need technological expertise was not reasonable. For example, if you are operating a machine, even if it is designed for experts, who's to say you can't just read the manual? You're operating the machine after all, not building it.

I suppose I could see that (C) is right on account that the premise was about non-expert machines and the conclusion was about the general job market, and so, in applying the negation test, if the future job market requires using machines designed for experts, then the premise can no longer support the conclusion since it only mentioned non-expert machines.

#help

I would say so.

The statement is a premise because it supports the conclusion: Moderate Exercise → Lowers Risk of Artery Blockage due to Blood Clots.

If the stimulus read: "If Recent Study True, then (Moderate Exercise → Lowers Blood Cholesterol). Recent Study is True", then there would be no assumption in the argument. But because the argument does not state that the Recent Study in in fact True, it is an assumption that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn.

You may be confusing "accepting the statement as true" with "accepting the study to be true." You can accept the premise "If Recent Study True, then (Moderate Exercise → Lowers Blood Cholesterol)" without accepting that the Study is True.

That worked for me too!

I understand why answer choice D is wrong, but I would like to know how to avoid making this kind of mistake.

I chose do D because I thought it was commenting on the the environment and not necessarily the light source (which is what answer choice E is effectively doing). The reason why I chose D instead of E, was because the prosecution was relying on Dr. Yuge for the conclusion. I suppose I simply misunderstood D?

I was debating between answer choice B and C, and decided against B because of the word 'some', which I now see how it weakens the argument. I would like to understand, however, why I choose C. My reasoning was that since today every language has the word 'sea,' and presumably some of these languages are spoken in cold and isolated places, therefore the words spoken or not spoken in the language do not precisely tell us about their living conditions. Was this an over assumption on my part?