@AliMerhi That wouldn't be an argument, because your goal is to prove that "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places".

So the sentence could be "All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places[conclusion], because all intellectual places have a wide range of books on various subjects, and all libraries are well-stocked with these books.[premise] " (something of that nature, someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

I believe that knowledge needs to be stated in the argument in order for us to confirm it. As long as we can see a Claim being supported by another Claim, then it's an argument.

Thank God, 7/7 correct. What helped me understand on my own was "Conclusion=comment" "Premise=Evidence".

@carsonjb Yep! The takeaway is "If claim A is true, then it will increase the LIKELIHOOD that claim B is true as well". That's the concept of Support.

This just means the goal is to find which claim is "Premise" and which is "Conclusion". Conclusion is the claim SUPPORTED by Premise. Premise is the claim SUPPORTING the Conclusion.

[Reason sentence 1 isn't the premise]

• You don't get much from it info wise.

• Thinking like "Not every mammal is suitable as a pet, Therefore, Tigers are very aggressive." Shows us the first sentence makes NO sense as the Premise (The Supporter) because the first sentence is a STATEMENT. a statement is almost like a comment. The Premise is like the "Evidence" to the comment.

"Not every mammal is suitable as a pet. Afterall, Tigers are very aggressive and can seriously hurt people".

• "After all" is a Premise word hint, so anytime you see that its Premise!

So the Conclusion is the first sentence.

What helped me surprisingly, was taking the contrapositive of the statement before I take the actual translation. For whatever reason, it helped me a lot to do that before working backwards to the actual translation.

So for example, for question 4, instead of immediately reasoning "oh, internally consistent scientific theory → plausible", I said: "Okay, after reading this statement, this means that if I don't have an internally consistent scientific theory, then it wouldn't be plausible. But, if it was an internally consistent scientific theory, then it would be! So that means that internally scientific theory goes first and then plausible goes next":

internally consistent scientific theory → plausible

Also, visually writing out the statement helped me a lot. Especially if I put a member in the subset to help solidify my understanding even more.

I hope this helps a little bit! It took me some time to understand the concept myself.

@AryanNooshi

I also thought that.

I think the assumption is still correct because there's no actual clarification on what rights those presently living individuals have to art, so you can really make it up. I think just as long as it makes sense and you understood the comparative its okay to assume that.

Okay so I think I'm probably thinking about this weirdly. But I liken this lesson on arguments to science. In that, the premise is an independent variable to your argument (or experiment) while your conclusion is the dependent variable that cannot occur without the independent variable. The dependent variable can change of course depending on your independent variable. But it cannot be different. For the dependent variable to occur you NEED the independent variable if that makes any sense. I hope I'm not thinking of this wrong lol.