i agree!!

what perspective does the passage 'push forward' about that subject

@Kellbell206 It's a fact, it's not conditional on anything, so that's why its not part of it.

Why couldn't question 2 also be a main conclusion question?

For question 3 could you also say

K and J --> /L?

@sammyim09 Also I agree with what you said about question 4, that is how I thought about it too!

@sammyim09 I completely agree with you, question 2 stumped me, finding the premise conclusion was fine but breaking up the complex argument took me a second, but I did get to the same conclusion as you.

Minor Premise: Tax on sugar-laden foods is now implemented at a level such that it costs a company more to pay the tax than it would have cost to create healthier options. 

(which supports →)

Major Premise/Sub Conclusion: Because companies aim to maximize their profits, 

(supported by minor premise and supports →)

Conclusion: those companies that might produce such foods will now shift towards healthier alternatives.

Assumptions made: companies work towards maximizing their profits, their reactions are for that not because of health regulations, brand image or consumer preference.