• nouns in the subject can be modified.

• think about the modification in terms of cutting down subsets

• all clauses contain a subject and a predicate

• the subject always contains a noun and is what the clause is about

• the predicate must contain and usually start with a verb and is the thing that we want to say about the subject

• noun + verb= clause

• clause = simple sentence

• complex sentences contain many clauses

• Noun: persons, places, things, ideas, concepts or processes.

• verbs: be, have, words that indicate action, more or less.

• this photographic was the conclusion

• In this question first line was context then transitions into author's opinion.

• I initially thought A was the answer. At a glance it sounds like author would agree with this.

• A is so definitive and the conclusion doesn't say that it says "not all efforts".

• Whereas B is closer to that because it says "some.

• Devil is in the details.

• C is completely wrong employees aren't owners.

• D is talking about the context no the conclusion.

• E is only talking about the premise.

"but" "however" and "yet" often indicate a transition from context to argument.

• since intros premise of argument

• con can show up before or after indicator word

• conc is free to move but premise is attached to indicator work

• im hugging you because i miss you i am not trying to convince you that i am hugging you because i miss you that doesn't make sense

• just how someone can be a mother and daughter at same time

• a claim can be a premise and conclusion at the same time

• the person is a mother or child depending on who she is standing in relation to

• same is true in arguments

• I cannot reference my own knowledge.

• You have to point to the information in the passage.

• - If the tiger phrase was the conclusion the mammal phrase does not really support it

• - but if you flip it around the tiger phrade does support the mammal phrase

this was an amazing example

• when the premises are true it is a valid argument

• - valid argument contain no assumptions

• assumption on left is reasonable because its truer.

• not all assumptions are equal

• assumption missing link between premise and conclusion

• if true makes support stronger

• if made false they make support weaker

• a strong argument must be true a restatement or valid inference

• a week argument is unsupported be true or could be false

• they are not binary categories they are gradient

• support is gradient

• some are weak some are strong

• my hypothesis is disney is strongest because there is evidence of walt offering requsite propitations because those who offered mickey something have a pass the rest dont.

• i think tigers is second strongest because it supports the claim not every mammal is pet suitable.

• and trash is weakest because as you already mentioned all these claims suggest the conclusion but are not definitive.

this one was long

• several claims

• can organize into individual claims that are the premises

• they are the support they are reasons to believe

• they are evidence.

• how strong is the support?

• evidence we have is consistent with the conclusion

• may even be slightly suggestive of the conclusion

• but does not definitively prove the conclusion

• gradient, how strong is the evidence?

• strength of support is incredibly important

my notes

• as indicated by says what i say next supports what i previously said

• conclusion is not always at the end of the argument.

• q3 nothing supports something else it is just a bunch of stated facts so not an argument.

• how we know first sent in q4 is a conclusion because it is supported by the next sentence.

• so conclusion indicator also cause its supported by 1st 2 sentences.

• q6 tricked me i did not actual read that one sentence didnt actually support another i glanced thru that one.

• indicator dont always precede a conclusion

• q7 first sentence is designed to be suported by the other two, add words like because and why?

TO figure out whether there is support between a set of claims

Claim 1 Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.

Claim 2 Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet.

In this case I feel claim one increases the likelihood of the truth of claim 2 more than the other way around because claim is true but could just be true in the sense of a a koala probably wouldn't be a suitable pet.

Whether a claim is supported is a different question from whether a claim is true.

Just for my notes

Conclusion: My daughter ate all the cookies.

Premise: I saw her eat all of the cookies and no one else was in the house but she and I.