I've reviewed JY's videos, but I'm having issues. On the most recent tests I've done, I'm getting ~55% of these questions. On the weakening, I'm trying to "punch the arguments in the face" and on the flaw I'm trying to imagine how I can "punch it in the face." This is an absolute immediate concern since test day is Saturday. I can't explain it. I'm doing acceptable on argument parts, MP/MC, so feel good about identifying argument structure and support. But I can't seem to figure out how to "punch" effectively. Anyone have similar issues and how did you overcame them?

On a side note (and not important to the above question), I've recently read the books; "lawyer bubble" and "learned optimism." In the lawyer bubble, he talks about lawyers having more pessimistic behavior than others. In learned optimism, which is a great book and I would highly recommend to those looking to increase their interpersonal communication effectiveness, someone is not solely either pessimistic nor optimistic. However, people tend to exhibit behavior that is closer to one side. I generally consider myself closer to the optimistic side, or open to exploring ideas, as opposed to shutting considerations down. Anyone who thinks they have a more optimistic personality have similar problems with these questions?

I haven't completed finished all the questions in the lesson plan, but I've done enough to figure out that I'm not getting it yet. I keep picking the SA choice, without fail. I do the negation "/NA -> /VA" and it works, obviously. So I circle it and move on. So i've got two problems here.

On NA questions, should I recognize that I need to read all the answer choices on a NA question?

Is there a better way to read through them for time sake?

Is their specific language that I should be looking for in the NA question?

I noticed the SA answer choices for NA questions, that they generally have an All, Every or similar modifier. Should I immediately throw a mental flag when I see these modifiers?