Can you have an argument with just a conclusion and a concession like question number 5? I thought you had to have premises to have an argument. If it is an argument, would this be an example of a weak argument because there are no premises to support the conclusion

#help I am getting the definitive conclusions but I am struggling to draw the "some" or "sometimes" conclusions. Does anyone have a trick for this?

#feedback Just to clarify, the negation of most is NOT some. The reason why is some can imply that at least one person does. In this case, the range is 0-50 so it doesn't have to be one.

Just want to be sure I am getting this right!

#feedback I get that the main point of these exercises is to enable us to get the main message/comparison so we can draw an accurate conclusion. Is it okay if I don't necessarily get the exact some comparison (like the exact same wording) but I draw the same conclusion from my wording?

I'm not sure it makes sense but I thought I would try to ask

#feedback on question 3 I analyzed it like this

Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.

A: nation who wants maximum deterrence from aggression

B: nation who does not want maximum deterrence from aggression

Q: greater retaliatory force

winner: A

is that problematic? I feel like I understood the results the same way but i want to see if my slightly different analysis still gets the same point across