To clarify, can I think of "some" as necessary for both "most" and "all?" Or do we consider all as /some b/c of the fact that some = implies at least 1 & all = means all?

For all my undergrads who completed or are in a more writing-based major, I began viewing complex arguments as reflective of basic paragraph structures in an argumentative paper. For example, the overarching argument of your paper is the main argument AKA Major Conclusion. Then, the first paragraph reflects one of the sub-points presented in your thesis --> this could be considered a Sub-Conclusion/Major Premise. The details supporting the sub-point are your Minor Premises.

Let me know if this makes sense or if I just completely missed the mark LOL

I was confused with the layout of this Skill Builder exercise, especially since there wasn't a colour-coding system that accurately captures the sub-conclusion/major premise, minor premises, and main conclusion. This distinction would've saved a lot of confusion.

#feedback

I am wondering the same!

Good point at the end - indicators, if used, won't always be neatly placed for you

My initial order before review: Disney, Trash Bin, Tiger

After review & my reflections:

Disney --> There were two conditions to getting the Genie+ fast pass if you are a Disney Vacation Club Member. Since Walt did not prostrate himself, he must've satisfied the other condition! This was the strongest because the support increased the truth of the conclusion.

Tiger --> The claim (conclusion) is that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet b/c tigers are dangerous & they are mammals. This seems a bit weaker than the Disney exemplar b/c we assume that tigers are not suitable pets since they're dangerous, and it seems logically sound in supporting the conclusion.

Trash Bin --> There is a large assumption to make in hypothesizing that the cat had (1) toppled the trash can, and (2) to access the salmon. The initial premises do not increase the likelihood of truth in the detective's accusations. In that sense, it's weaker in comparison to the other two exemplars.

Please feel free to give me any feedback! I think I'm understanding it better, but I would appreciate anyone's input :)

I arrived at the answer a bit differently. I neglected to view the first sentence as the conclusion, but I still broke down the argument using Lawgic to understand that the 'anti-inflammatory drugs' part would benefit from strengthening. It took some time, but I'm glad I understood this!!