LOL, second round. this time again 4/5.

what do you think about this ?

S.C/S.P: SUB CONCLUSION / SUB PREMISE

P: PREMISE

M.C: MAJOR COMCLUSION

S.C/S.P[Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children,]

because P[those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future. ]

Therefore, M.C[businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting.]

Please help:

why can't "Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children," be the CONCLUSION for the premise that "those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future."

AND

one of the PREMISES for "businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting"

Read it like this:

Because children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future, business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children.

Therefore, businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting.

Identified the conclusion, context, and the premise. realized that B is a rewrite of the main conclusion, and did not get the answer correctly (not even during BR). Why?

didn't pay attention to the question. thought it was asking which choice strengthen the conclusion.

takeaway: READ THE QUESTION. LET IT GET DIGESTED FULLY.

X: CONTEXT

S.C: SUB CONCLUSION

P: PREMISE

M.C: MAJOR CONCLUSION

X[The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards.]

S.C[But this is not a sustainable, long term solution.]

P[Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,]

M.C[they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.]

This is how I initially categorized it, and I think I am having difficulty finding the difference between sub-conclusion and sub-premise. To me, what I found as S.C was still a conclusion partly then be tied down by the M.C (that the operations should be immediately shut down).

4/5

5/5, BUT...I still feel shaky with identifying the embedded premises...

4/5

I initially thought the 2nd Q is NOT and argument, but then said to myself:

What if I read it like:

Premise [After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.]

added in my head: Therefore, =>

Conclusion [One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species]

Support [Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor.]

I guess there are three takeaways:

1- Trust your first instinct

2- Don't add non-existent words to MAKE it an argument

3- That this is a report (which I still have difficulty figuring out the difference)

Simply saying that the question is "reporting" on some findings, would not solve the nature of the question for me. How would you identify an argument from a report?

Any thoughts ?

6/7. I have a question on Q3. Can we say that on top of the description provided in the video that not every "human communication" is language?

Ok, I watched the video, and my initial assumption was that this was not an argument. The reason is that I structured it in my head as: “if” + premise (an assumed claim) + “therefore” + conclusion (my final judgment). My thinking was that if I can identify plausible exceptions to the conclusion, then it is not really functioning as a conclusion.

Since I could think of exceptions to the statement “after all, ... to people,” I assumed the sentence was not actually presenting an argument. However, I am a bit confused now. About halfway through the video, it seems to classify it as an argument, but then later it appears to reverse course and say that it is not. Am I missing something ?