@lmarrington · So, what’s going on here? Well, a couple of things. You can see that 7Sage has broken down each line of the paragraph basically one by one to show the premise(s) that are being used to support the argument which is that "Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey." Starting with claim 1., it’s letting us know that Disney Vacation Club members can now access the Genie+ Pass. How? Through claim two, which is to offer ten goats to Mickey as well as how to access the pass (via app). Then support sentence three is telling the reader how they can get it, by prostrating themselves before Goof (and this is where I think it’s a bit tricky because you can’t forget about claim two i.e. also being able to offer propitiations to Mickey (ten goats)). Then something interesting and maybe a bit confusing happens in claim 4. The paragraph switches to talking about Walt. In claim 4 it lets the reader know that Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club (seems a bit random huh?). Then there’s added support in claim 5 which is that he has the Genie+ pass. Claim 6 then adds to both 4 and 5 by stating that he hasn’t prostrated himself to anyone or anything (meaning he didn’t go the route of Goofy) This then leaves only one option, Walt MUST have gotten the pass, through Mickey. Claim 7 (the conclusion) wraps it all up by stating that he must have offered the requisite to obtain the pass. What I think is maybe confusing (I was too) is the “random” switch up halfway through the paragraph to Walt. It starts with generally talking about how any Disney Vacation Member can obtain a fast pass. I believe what is happening is that the author of this claim is purposefully trying to throw off the reader by “switching” to a more specific entity (Walt) so that you get confused. (These are my notes and I saw your question, so I added more to the notes to see if this maybe helps, because same lol).