Kaplan deems this a "complex conclusion" and states that "the principle that justifies that conclusion will have to be equally complex." I thought that concessions should be considered as not forming an actual part of the argument because their just throw away statements, but Kaplan seems to think otherwise. I read the conclusion to be "it would be laudable if the Jackson's passed along the correct number" since that is the main-clause of the argument. How are we suppose to read and consider concession statements relative to the argument when they are given in the conclusion? Do they form a material part of the conclusion and thus also require justification? Or does answer choices (A) just offer justification and it's not principally required to justify concessions that appear in the conclusion?

#help (Added by Admin)

I'm interested as well. Maybe we can get an email thread going to coordinate?

I don't understand why Simpson's third statement regarding curators needs to be considered a premise. One can argue, it seems, that it merely descriptive of why the collection is small. He seems to just be describing why the collection is small rather than intentionally providing a justification for why it's appropriate. Can someone please help.

Sorry - correction:

Hi J.Y., can you please explain why we can’t just stick with “cannot” group 4 mechanical translation and make “poetry” the negated n.c.? I understand that "only" introduces n.c., but how does one prioritize two seemingly competing conditional indicators in this instance?

#help (Added by Admin)

Hi J.Y., can you please explain why we can't just stick with "cannot" group 4 mechanical translation and make "poetry" the negated s.c.? I understand that only introduces n.c., but how does one prioritize a conditional indicator in this instance?