I choose A because it is the crux of what the text describes. The text states that democratic reforms are undertaken as a means for rulers to preserve power however they are only undertaken after the 3 social reform steps occur. The steps of reform being a shift in society no longer condoning authoritarian rule hence the nations social power base. Step 2 being people of privilege (economic privilege BASED on the examples provided) remove there support from the authoritarian hence economic power base. Step 3 in the social reform describes states that due to the expansion of resources and societies new organization formal and informal social order is essentially distributed (people walking the streets demanding change). All of these causing a disruption in social order and economic growth (by virtue of there being few top economic contributes lack of as much economic growth). And the text states that authoritarians only change there authoritarian policy when they realize that they will not be able to hold onto the power this being shown to them through these 3 steps. The these being done until "such reforms are instituted" being supported by the 3rd paragraph sentence where it states that "this development can alter the balance of power in the country and as the authoritarian is now on the defensive."

how is the conclusion it justified for "justified only if the computer is typically used in the operation of a business." unreachable. its reachable if it is found that the computer is typically used in the operation of a business?

3 lessons ago he said to immediately disqualify a answer if it uses "only if" then the next lesson had only if being the right answer. In previous lecture he stated that you can have a general rule that applies to the situation but this answer has a general answer being correct.

3 doesn't make sense the first sufficient premise should be volume

because as the question states "Unless a bookstore generates high sales volume, it cannot get bulk discounts from publishers."

ie. volume is need for bulk discount and something that guarantees the occurrence of something else is the sufficient condition plus the reverse doesn't make sense if you have a bulk discount that does not guarantee that a bookstore generates high sales volume,

if your going to answer to this post don't say look at indicator words because the list they provide is incomplete and in the next lesson the literally tell not to do so or rely on those exclusively meaning this has to make logical sense and " just look at indicator word" doesn't do that.

same or thought it referred to society

I checked whether 3.1, 3.2, and 4.1 could be broken down in to 2 premises and a conclusion using chatgpt and it said that it could and gave this quote "This breakdown maintains the logical structure and clarity of the argument." Thus all arguments from 3.1-3.5 and 4.1-4.5 could also be broken down into 2 premises and 1 conclusion as they are all the same respective structure structure with different words.

did anyone else find that 3.1-4.5 should have two premises.

ex. 4.5 (my answer)

mp Because the influence of wellness influencers promoting outdoor activities is increasing,

mp and individuals are becoming more aware of the benefits of nature exposure,

mc the amount of time spent outdoors will likely continue to grow.

this is the structure I did in 4.5 you can see the second premise is about a completely different topic and is introduced with an "and" to further signify this "and individuals are becoming more aware of the benefits of nature exposure" the previous premise talks about the "influence of wellness influencers promoting outdoor activities is increasing" it makes not mention of people becoming aware of the benefits of nature exposure.

additionally they both stand on there own

why is the amount of time spent outdoors will likely continue to grow. because "individuals are becoming more aware of the benefits of nature exposure,"

why is the amount of time spent outdoors will likely continue to grow. "Because the influence of wellness influencers promoting outdoor activities is increasing,"

Thus they fulfill the definition of a premise which is to support a conclusion and they pass the "why" test. This goes for all the examples from 3.1-4.5 the grammar and sentence structure in a lot of them sucks but it should be the case that there are two premises there. Also some have said there isn't two premises due to brevity, this is wrong the instructions were concerned with accurately identifying premises and conclusion not brevity. At no point in the instructions was brevity or speed outlined if it was there would be a time limit to test students speed. So what's the reason there aren't two premises for these exercises?

can't you break 12.1 down into 2 premises?

I'm pretty sure 7.1 shouldn't be an argument its just observation with no conclusion, no?

I don't get 7.2 because your could reverse it and it would still work:

ex.

p: The prize for the best science project will either go to Alice or Bob. I just found out that Bob didn't win.

C:Therefore, it's almost certain that Alice will get the prize.

however this would also work:

C: The prize for the best science project will either go to Alice or Bob.

P: I just found out that Bob didn't win. Therefore, it's almost certain that Alice will get the prize.

if bob didn't win and Alice likely getting the prize is true it support the conclusion that either Alice of Bob will get the prize for the best science fair