I'm not sure how sample 9 is not conspiracy. How is, "The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor's house." not consideration and agreement?

The crime was already committed before he changed his mind, drove away, and called the police.

If that makes him innocent I am going to always agree to disagree. What was he? Scared and felt threatened? He guilty just like Fat Cat.

Maybe I’m going out on a limb when I say this, but I think both conclusions were subs and the “sub-premise” was the actual conclusion.

That is if analogies (such maintenance almost always pays off in the long run. = other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments) can be conclusions and Stimuluses can have two Sub-Conclusions.

I say this in reference to the SC-MC rule:

other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments, because we should praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor

&

other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments, because our city is likely to see a big payoff in several years

vs

we should praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor, because other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments

&

that our city is likely to see a big payoff in several years, because other nearby cities have seen large returns on their similar investments

Creating an “alternate” hypothesis:

We should not praise our city council for hiring a long-term development advisor, because the columnist's city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.

&

That our city is unlikely to see a big payoff in several years, because the columnist's city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.

Conditional and set logic is a lot of, "What comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

@Calico_Jaxx I think 7Sage uses the first line as context. I do thank you for explaining the answer claim by claim, but that was not the question I had. Nonetheless thank you for your reiteration on how the correct conclusion is understood.

I would need more evidence. I was going to ignore missing facts, but I could not leave Mr. Fat Cat guilty without erasing all doubt. In such I would need to know:

1. There is no airway that would allow for a breeze to blow over the trash.

2. That someone was not in the house, moving in a hurry, and accidentally bumping the trash can not recognizing it "toppled".

3. That the someone did not throw trash away that threw the trash can off balance and they did not recognize the trash can "toppled".

All three of which, would allow Mr. Fat Cat to munch as a matter of circumstance from the irresponsibility of the guilty party. This could be considered an argument that was built off of assumption or inference. I suppose a premise with support stating, "There is no way wind through the door or windows could have forced the fall. And, Mr. Fat Cat is always clawing at the bin when he smells me cooking fish after watching me throw the remains in the trash bin.". It would make for a stronger argument that he is in fact... GUILTY

I do understand where the conclusion is "Therefore, Walt must have..." However, I do believe this "correct" conclusion takes us away from the overall claim that "Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass."

Was the argument about Walt or was the argument about being able to access the Genie+ fast pass? Why is Walt, who must be a Disney Vacation Club member, not just an example scenario for the initial claim?

The scenario of Walt, supports that members must do A or B to obtain a Genie+, because Walt did A or B (which is a flaw I believe). This ultimately concludes that if you do A or B you, as a member, have access to the Genie+ pass.