I was on C before D, but since I felt the arguer was arguing the marks were a result of geological processes and D spoke against the geological processes I went with D.

This one threw me for a wind, but I think I got it, hoping this helps someone else.

From the lesson:

"Percy lives with his poodle in a New York City residential building with more than ten units. Therefore, if Percy has openly and notoriously kept his poodle for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to get rid of it.

You can probably tell that this argument is not valid. It's missing a rule. Can you state the missing rule in order to make this argument valid? Perhaps you can, if you recall the previous lesson.

Missing rule: ?

Facts: pNYC and pB10+

Conclusion: pOpNo and p3+Ms → pR

From my understanding, the conclusion introduces a condition: that if Percy has kept his poodle openly and notoriously for three months or more, then his landlord cannot force him to remove the dog. However, imagine you are someone who hasn't seen the rules from the previous lesson. Without an explicit rule connecting the three-month period to the landlord's inability to act, you might reasonably ask, “What does Percy keeping his dog for three months have to do with anything?”

The issue is that the argument doesn’t provide the necessary background rule, leaving the conclusion unsupported. However, in logic, we need to take the passage at face value, meaning we must assume that such a rule exists, even if it isn’t stated outright. This makes the three-month period function as a condition that, when met, leads to the conclusion about the landlord's limitations.

Consider further: If the passage ended with the statement, “Percy named his dog Max,” it wouldn't require being treated as a rule because it has no bearing on the structure, strength, or soundness of the argument. It’s just an extra detail. However, if the conclusion stated, “Percy named his dog Max to comply with the building ordinance, allowed by New York City, which requires all dogs to be named Max,” we must treat this differently.

Even though this rule seems arbitrary, we are required to take it at face value—binary, either yes or no, 1 or 0. This now presents a condition that is necessary for Percy to legally keep his poodle in the building. Therefore, it becomes crucial to the structure of the argument, regardless of where it appears in the passage, because it imposes a requirement that must be fulfilled for Percy to have the right to keep his poodle.

In this case, the rule about naming the dog “Max” now directly affects the outcome, and we must accept it as essential to the logic of the argument.

Thank god!!! 5/5