I found it helpful to remember that an assertion IS NOT necessarily an argument. You can assert something without providing evidence to support that assertion. As soon as I made the distinction between an argument and an assertion in my head, it was way easier to identify which examples above weren't arguments, and why.

While I have come to appreciate "Lawgic", it was a bit tricky to follow in the beginning. I wish the curriculum was structured so that we got this entire list (in this format) prior to learning about each type of valid argument so that as we were learning we could see how each component contributes to the overall argument, rather than the structure of the argument being revealed in Lawgic after the fact.

Not that it would make a huge difference to the overall learning, but I think it would have helped me follow along a bit easier.

Is there a difference between when the question stem asks us to weaken the "reasoning" vs. when we're asked to weaken the "conclusion"? For example, the question about Jocko the Chimp asked us to weaken the conclusion, but this question asks us to weaken the reasoning.

The language is subtle (and regardless, I was able to determine the correct answer) but does that indicate that we should be trying to undermine different parts of the stimulus or are "conclusion" and "reasoning" used interchangeably for WSE questions? #help