Hi all, writing out how I got the right answer here in case it helps someone else.

First, I made a conditional chain:

^ T HP --> v G/S --> ^ Transgression

_________________________

^ S LP --> ^ignore the welfare of others.

To get from the top part of this (the premises), to the bottom part (the conclusion), you need to see two missing assumptions:

1) The author is assuming that more severe legal penalties also mean a higher threat of punishment.

2) The author is assuming that the more that people ignore the welfare of others, the more they will commit transgressions.

____________________________

From here, I approached the answer choices in a process of elimination.

A) Negated: legal penalties determine the morality of an action. I don't care about the morality of anything. OUT.

B) Negated: NO actions that involved ignoring welfare are transgressions. This goes against the assumption I made above. Assumption 2 says that ignoring welfare is associated with transgressions. BINGO.

C) Negated: People who are concerned about trheats to their own well being do not tend to be less concerned about the welfare of others. The main reason this was out to me was "threat to well being", where are we even talking about well being? totally not relevant.

D) Negated: The threat of harsh punishment does not deter people from committing transgressions only if the threat is at least sometimes carried out. We actually don't care about whether or not the threat is carried out at all.

E) Not everyone has at least some tendency to feel guilt or shame. The premise says that the threat of harsh. punishment USUALLY decreases the tendency to feel guilt or shame. This was not by any means an ALL statement. We don't care if there are some people who don't fit into this generalization.

Jane's Argument:

Conclusion: We should restrict the amount of time Jacquiline and Mildred are allowed to watch TV

Premise: Hand-eye coordination suffers when children spent time in front of TV

Assumption 1: Jacqueline and Mildred are children

Assumption 2: We should restrict TV if it causes hand eye coordination to suffer.

Assumption 3: Jacquiline and Mildred would watch a great amount of TV if it is not restricted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan's argument:

Conclusion: We do not need to restrict their viewing.

Premise: The article says that only children under three's hand-eye coordination struggles when watching great amounts of tv

Premise 2: They are not under three

Assumption: Jacquiline and Mildred's hand eye coordination is not affected by watching great amounts of TV.

Assumption 2: If their hand-eye coordination is not affected by watching great amounts of TV, we need not restrict their viewing.

Assumption 3: Nothing else is a reason as to why we would need to restsirtc their viewing

What if there is another reason as to why, like it makes your vision bad no matter how old you are, wouldn't that be a reason as to why we shoudl restrict their viewing. Just because this specific study does not give us a reason to restrict their viewing on the grounds that their hand-eye coordination would suffer, does not mean that there is not another reaosn. (This is the Flaw)

Conclusion: There is no medical reason as to why doctors should use Drug Z (the more expensive, drug) instead of Drug Y

Premise 1: Drug Z is not clearly more effective

Assumption: If a drug is not CLEARLY more effective than another drug, then there is no medical reason why it should be preferred to the other drug.

_____________________________________

Conclusion we need to justify: There is a reason as to why a doctor would use Drug Z rather than drug Y

Assumption: There is another reason, aside from the effectiveness of a drug, that could warrant its use over another.

If these chlorofluorocarbons have been useful in helping cars meet legally mandated emission standards, specifically by cleajning the electronic sensors in the ignition systems, then I would think that to continue to meet the emission standards (that are even more stringent), the cars would need to fins some other method to lean the ignition systems.