Not sure if it's just me - but I feel like I'm psyched out of using the indicators as a viable strategy after watching the end of that lesson. The "why should I believe this claim" seemed like a much more successful pathway to be able to identify premises and conclusions; am I the only one feeling that?

This makes sense but to me where I'm confused is where do we draw the line at outside knowledge? Different people know more about different things so should we just take everything at face value or just go with what we know?