Translation:I became sick again.
If the translation given here is I became sick again, shouldn't the klingon be jIropchoHqa'? But since both suffixes belong to the same category and cannot be used in the same word, could you extrapolate the change (became) only through context? Or maybe split the idea into two sentences: jIropchoH. qaSqa'.
When not sticking too close to the literal translation, jIropqa' could be translated I became sick again, while jIropqa'pu' could be translated I am sick again. Remember that -qa' is best translated as resume.
jIropqa' I was sick, then I wasn't, then I resume being sick.
jIropqa'pu' The resumption of being sick is a completed event. I'm not resuming being sick anymore, I continue to be sick.
If qa' is best translated as resume then wouldn't the sentence in this skill set vaS'a'Daq jIyItqa' be best translated as I resumed/continued walking to the great hall rather than I walked to the great hall again. These mean two different things. For nonnative speakers of English who aren't sure, the first means you started walking to the great hall, stopped, then started again while the second means that you already made one complete trip to the great hall and are now doing a second trip. Are these both ok translations but one is preferred and you can tell them by context?
I believe that vaS'a'Daq jIyItqa' generally means I resume walking to the Great Hall, not I walk to the Great Hall another time.
Let's take a look at how The Klingon Dictionary defines the suffix:
Using this suffix implies that an action had been taking place, then it stopped, and then it began again.
So vaS'a'Daq jIyItqa' means I had been walking to the Great Hall, then I stopped, then I start walking to it again.
But the idea of using -qa' to mean doing something another time is not completely impossible. If I walked to the Great Hall yesterday then went home and today I begin walking to the Great Hall again, it's not completely impossible to consider my walking there today to be a resumption of yesterday's activity of walking there.
While this is a bit of a twisty justification, it is not without precedent in canon. For example,
not vay' Dara'qa'
There will be nothing to command ever again (paq'batlh)
This is talking about commanding another time, not resuming a command that was not completed.
The Fek'lhr strikes again (Power Klingon)
This refers to a new attack, not the resumption of a previous attack.
I make it again (startrek.klingon)
This is not referring to the resumption of making something; it refers to making a new instance of a thing. Incidentally, in the same message that Okrand posted this one, he also defined -qa' as do again.
So this Duolingo sentence is not wrong. To determine whether this means resume being sick or be sick another time, you need context.