Since were are not told the exact number of SGP and SBP we can assign a value to each that will be easier to work with.

For example:

Most SBP are also SGP= (Out of 10 SBP -M-> At least 6 are SGP). So far we have at least 6 SKP.

Most SGP are not SBP= ( Out of 10 SGP --M-> At least 6 are not SBP/Four or fewer are SBP).

From these assigned values we know for sure there are at least 16 SGP and at most 14 SBP.

This is Exclusivity Flaw.

Conditional language in the conclusion.

If X then not-Y.

If psychologists are correct, then parents can't be trusted.

Premise: Parents rated the show based on how much they enjoyed it. They did not take psychologist view into account when rating the show.

Conclusion: If psychologist's approach are sound then parents have little reason to trust their own rating.

The argument did not show that the parents disagree with the psychologist.

Lets say psychologist rate a show 5/5 because of the language, location, actors, story, etc.

Parents watch the same show and also rate it 5/5, but not for the same reasons as psychologist. Parent rate the show 5/5 because they liked the main character. Or some other reasons.

Even though, the reasons for rating the show 5/5 was different for both parents and psychologist, they still arrived at the same conclusion. Even though the both arrived at the conclusion for different reasons, they still agree about the values of the show.

D. Parents might agree with psychologists even if they arrived at the conclusion for different reasons.

@AmandaTesar6

It could be, but we have accept the statement as true. If it said most or some would be comfortable if well designed, then in that case some still could be uncomfortable despite it being well designed. But the statement says if well designed the comfortable, which means any well designed pp well be comfortable.

1: Coffee House + Restaurants are public places.

2: If Well designed public place ---most---> Features art work.

3: public place uncomfortable ---> Not well designed public place (Negate this = Well designed public place ----> comfortable).

4: Comfortable then ---> Specious interior.

Now connect the negation of statement 3 to 2.

If it is well designed then ----> It features art work

If it is well designed then ----> it comfortable ----> it has specious interior.

D must be true.

The principle: If reasonable person did not read the police because it was 1000 pages long --> Then that persons expectations should take legal precedence over what is written in the police. (For example, you would reasonably expect that the insurance would cover all the damages to your car. But because the policy was 1000 pages long you did not read it thoroughly. And in the policy it says we will not cover the damage to you door, or damage caused by hail). What is written in the policy contradict with your reasonable expectation.

And according the Application of the Principle, your/Celia's expectation should take legal precedent because the policy was 1000 long pages and no reasonable person would read 1000 pages long document thoroughly.

For the Application to work we need to establish 1) Reasonable person would not read the police thoroughly and 2) Celia expected the policy to cover the hail damage. B does exactly that.

@Tstickney91 "each student who received a grade lower than b minus missed at least one class." = if lower than B minus (C range) then missed at least one class.

If no class was missed = (Attended every class) than no grade of C range, which mean B minus or higher.

If negated and combined with the first statement:

Spanish 101 ---> Most attend every class (At least 6 students) So at least 6 students don't have a grade in the C range which means they must be in B range (B minus or higher)