For the 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 problems, they sound like facts rather than arguments. Or rather, it sounds like their conclusion should be the unstated sentence of "But actually, they did find something new" and the conclusion listed as the answer is the premise. Am I just reading something wrong or are unstated conclusions something that are covered on a later lesson or something?

#help

Is it possible to ping a teacher on this or something? I'm still confused

(˃̣̣̥︿˂̣̣̥|||)

Like, obviously, I get that the last sentence is not part of any argument. But the first two definitely seem like it. Unless we're supposed to read it as this??

1. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

2. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

3. (Assumption) If it is not well-stocked, it is not an intellectual place <-- Is this an assumption we're supposed to make???

In this case, yeah, it isn't an argument anymore because we can't assume that all libraries are well stocked/organized. Was this how we were supposed to read it?? Seems like a stretch. This question is super confusing.

So is it specifically the state of it that makes it not an argument? Because when I list it out like this, it sounds like an argument to me:

Premise: Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

Assumption: Libraries and bookstores have a wide range of books on various subjects.

Conclusion: All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

In simpler terms:

Premise: Intellectual places = have lots of books on various subjects

Assumption: Libraries & bookstores = have lots of books on various subjects. (Generally a safe assumption, I hope)

Conclusion: Libraries & bookstores = Intellectual places

It's obviously not a strong argument, because the premises and assumptions don't prove with enough certainty that "all" libraries and bookstores are intellectual places, but it still sounds like an argument to me.

So is the problem here the "well stocked" part, specifically? As in, am I supposed to read it like this? See below:

Version B of how I read this problem:

Premise: Have lots of books on various topics = well stocked + intellectual place

(Alternative premises: Have lots of books = well-stocked & Have books on various topics = intellectual place??)

Premise: Well stocked = Not disorganized aka is organized

Assumption: Have lots of books on various topics - well stocked (organized) = intellectual place?? <--unsure if my math is right here

Assumption: Libraries & bookstores = have lots of books on various subjects.

Conclusion: Libraries & bookstores = Intellectual places

Requires this Assumption: Libraries & bookstores = Are disorganized/not well stocked??

It still sounds like an argument, just a really weak one. So, is the reason it's not supposed to be an argument because it requires an assumption about the organization/disorganization of bookstores/libraries? Or is it just not an argument because it can't prove that "all" libraries and bookstores are intellectual places?

For 8.2, I don't understand the reasoning for it. I thought it was an argument like this:

Conclusion: All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

Premise: Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

Is it not an argument because the argument depends on the assumption (?) that libraries and bookstores are places that showcase a wide range of books on various subjects? Or is it not an argument because the "But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked." part kind of takes away from the support (is there a term for this? Anti-support?)?

#help (Added by Admin)