Here we have an argument part question, because we're being asked for how a statement figures in the argument.

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to start by breaking down the author's argument first

and understanding it, then I'll come back to figure out what specific claim I'm being asked about.

which is a certain kind of religious group, that assertion is unlikely to be correct.

Now, right off the bat, that first sentence strikes me as a potential conclusion of the author's argument,

because typically when the author says someone

else is wrong, that claim that the other person is wrong is the conclusion, and we would expect the author to back that up with evidence.

That first sentence, of course, we have to make sure we understand what that assertion was in the first place.

There's this other person who says that Bosch belonged to a certain religious group.

The author is saying that assertion is unlikely to be correct.

In other words, I think it's unlikely that he belonged to this group.

He probably did not belong to that group.

That's the conclusion.

Now, let's see what the evidence is for that conclusion.

Why shouldn't I believe he belonged to that group?

Well, Franger's hypothesis, which I guess is a reference to Franger's assertion, Franger's hypothesis explains much of Bosch's unusual subject matter.

So that's a concession.

I can see why Franger might think that Bosch belonged to this group, because that would explain Bosch's subject matter.

However, and so here is where we get to the author's premises.

However, there is evidence that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church and no evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.

These, right here, are premises designed to support the first sentence, which is a conclusion.

The author's telling us: there's evidence he was in the mainstream, and you don't have evidence that he was a member of this other group.

So that's why it's probably wrong to say that he was part of this other group.

The middle line about Franger's hypothesis, that's a concession the author's conceding.

I can see why Franger made this claim, but now let me give you my evidence for why he's probably wrong.

So now let's take a look at the claim that we are being asked about in the stimulus.

The statement that there is no evidence that Bosch was a member of the Brethren, that is this line right over here.

What is the role of that?

Well, that is a premise.

That is a reason offered for why we shouldn't believe he was part of this other religious group.

And the reason I know that's a premise rather than some kind of conclusion is because the author doesn't provide support for that.

The author doesn't give us any reason to think that there's no evidence he was a member of the Brethren.

We're just supposed to accept that.

Just accept as a fact that there's no evidence he was a member of this group.

If you ask the author, well, why should I believe that there's no evidence he was a member of the group?

It doesn't make sense to say, well, because there's evidence he was part of this other group.

That's just a separate line of evidence.

The evidence about the mainstream church, that's not being offered to prove that.

There's no evidence he was a member of the Brethren.

That's just a separate line of reasoning.

We have evidence he was in the mainstream, and also, separately, we don't have evidence that he was a member of this other group.

That's what's happening in those last two lines.

So when I go to these answers, I'm just looking for something like, it's a premise to support the conclusion.

This is the part that makes it wrong.

It doesn't guarantee that Franger's assertion is wrong.

The author's evidence here does not prove with certainty that Bosch was not a part of the Brethren.

Now, it is pretty strong evidence that he wasn't, but that doesn't guarantee, meaning as,

like a logical matter, prove with certainty that he was not a member of the Brethren.

He still could have been a member of the Brethren.

It's just that we haven't found evidence of it.

So that's why A is wrong.

It's really just this part guarantees the falsity.

If A had said it is a premise that the author uses to show that Franger's assertion is unlikely, then it would have been a great answer.

But A is too extreme.

Now, this is not correct, because what B is saying is that the bracketed part is supporting the other premise.

But that's not what's happening here.

If you ask the author, well, why should I believe that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church?

The author isn't saying, well, because there's no evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.

This idea that there's evidence he was a member of the mainstream church is just

a separate piece of evidence from the lack of evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.

And together, they're being used to reject what the other people say.

What the author is saying is, I don't think it's likely that he was a member of the Brethren.

I don't think he was a member of that group.

But the author isn't using the last sentence to prove, therefore, he was a member of the mainstream.

In fact, you'll note that the author doesn't actually say that Bosch was a member of the mainstream.

The author just says there was evidence of that.

So this is why answer choice B is not correct.

The bracketed part at the end, it's not used to support the claim that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church.

And in fact, that claim isn't even made, that he was a member of the mainstream church.

The claim that's made is that there's evidence of that.

The author doesn't question Franger's credibility.

Nowhere do we say anything about Franger's background.

Like, well, who is he?

Has he even studied the issue?

Does he have a degree in this stuff?

The author doesn't say anything like that.

So we're not questioning Franger's credibility.

And you know what?

Even though you wouldn't have worded it in that way, D is accurately describing the role of this last sentence.

That last sentence is intended to cast doubt on Franger's hypothesis.

Franger's hypothesis, by the way, is the idea that Bosch belonged to this group.

That is Franger's assertion.

It is also the same thing as Franger's hypothesis.

And the author is casting down on that, saying, I don't think it's true.

There's reason to think it's not true.

And how does the author cast down on that hypothesis?

By questioning the sufficiency of Franger's evidence.

Franger's evidence here is the idea that being part of the Brethren would explain Bosch's unusual subject matter.

What the author is saying is, yeah, but there's no evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.

So what you have pointed out, Franger, is not sufficient to prove your conclusion.

That's the way in which the author's questioning the sufficiency of Franger's evidence.

That's basically just fancy language to say the author's showing that there's not enough evidence to prove Franger's assertion true.

And that's how answer choice D accurately describes the role of that part.

Well, no, the author is not trying to prove that it's unexplained.

The idea that we can explain Bosch's choice of subject matter, that's what would support Franger.

Franger is saying that being part of the Brethren would explain his subject matter.

The author's coming along and just saying, well, look, there's no evidence he was a member of the Brethren.

That doesn't mean the author's trying to say, and so therefore we can't explain his subject matter.

That's not the point the author goes on to make.

So E is not correct here.

And the issue is just: D sounds weird.

You probably didn't word it this way in your mind.

But you have to pick D over A because A is saying something that's just flat out false.

These premises do not prove that Franger's wrong.

They provide strong evidence that Franger's wrong.

But how can you say that as a logical certainty, we know for sure he was not a member of the Brethren?

That's not what these premises add up to.

And so that's why you just can't pick A, no matter how strangely worded D sounds.