Most of the time if I get the question right I just skim through the written explanation and read the bolded parts to make sure I don't miss anything important. I'll also skim over the answer choice explanations to see if my reasoning for picking/not picking each answer tracks with what is outlined. And I'll obviously read the explanation more thoroughly if I got the question right but don't really know why/how.

I find myself zoning out while watching the videos, even if they're sped up so this works better for me. I usually only watch the videos if I got the question wrong.

I completely missed that part of the stimulus and was confused about its relevancy too. That distinction is so subtle and its just another reminder to read each question VERY carefully. Thank you!!

I've found the same thing! I've been using context clues to try and figure out the meaning of unfamiliar words and answering the questions accordingly. Only during the blind review will I look up the word, and then I use it to re-evaluate the answer choices.

I find this method really helps me exercise my ability understand context and forces me to think more critically about the answer choices.

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

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.

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.