Same issue!

Another thing I have noticed with the harder NA questions is that they are hard precisely because they bury the conclusion in a ton of dense detail - that is the conclusion is rarely ever neatly at the end of the stimulus, and it is this structure that makes one susceptible to latching onto the NA answer choices that are wrong and suck up time. So I always go back earlier in the stimuli to remind myself of the argument's conclusion before going through the answers. Its so easy to overlook the importance of a small act such as re-identifying the conclusion, but for these tougher questions, this is a lifesaver!

In such dense NA questions, narrowing down on the conclusion and using it as a guiding post is the best strategy. Here the conclusion is: "differences in resolution are irrelevant (for practical photography)' + a convoluted reason for why this is the case. For this question, I found that it is in fact possible to identify the correct answer based on this summarised conclusion (i.e differences in resolution are irrelevant), without a full understanding of the reason given for this conclusion in the stimulus.

Context helps the kid better recognize or guess at the meaning of a word, which helps the kid pronounce the word - this is because they might in fact use the word in real life so they of course know how to say it (i.e pronounce it correctly), they are just less or not familiar with the way in which the word is written. An example would be a sentence like "The dog is chewing on the dog biscuits, and the crumbs are falling all over the floor", where "biscuits" is the difficult word to read out/pronounce correctly, because of the "-cuits" part. But the dog chewing and the crumbs and the relative ease of pronouncing the first three letters of "biscuit" can help the kid guess the whole word correctly and so enable them to pronounce it correctly.