I think at this point it is so easy to start overthinking this specific process. For example, the argument with the color blindness:
When going through it my mind immediately told me the correct answer, but then I thought the indicator word was a trick and tried to look for other answers or technicalities.
I said that the second sentence was the conclusion because /technically/ "People who are red/green color blind cannot distinguish between green and brown" and "Gerald is red/green colorblind" support the statement that "Gerald cannot distinguish between green and brown". Assuming both premises are in fact true, it is extremely likely that Gerald cannot distinguish between green and brown. However, this does not make common sense. The author is not trying to convince us of anything, because the conclusion would just be restating what is in the premises. "Therefore Gerald is red/green color blind" is the conclusion because it is supported by the premises and promotes a new idea or connection.
I think at this point it is so easy to start overthinking this specific process. For example, the argument with the color blindness:
When going through it my mind immediately told me the correct answer, but then I thought the indicator word was a trick and tried to look for other answers or technicalities.
I said that the second sentence was the conclusion because /technically/ "People who are red/green color blind cannot distinguish between green and brown" and "Gerald is red/green colorblind" support the statement that "Gerald cannot distinguish between green and brown". Assuming both premises are in fact true, it is extremely likely that Gerald cannot distinguish between green and brown. However, this does not make common sense. The author is not trying to convince us of anything, because the conclusion would just be restating what is in the premises. "Therefore Gerald is red/green color blind" is the conclusion because it is supported by the premises and promotes a new idea or connection.