Language in the answer choice for B is a little confusing.

I think the discussion in the vid around 1:40 (question 3) is a bit confused. We're really dealing with two arguments (not quite syllogisms... actually enthymemes) in that question. Could help to define major premise, minor premise and conclusion more concretely. A conclusion has a subject and a predicate. So for the conclusion that "patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records"... "patients" = subject. Everything that follows in that sentence = predicate.

A major premise includes the conclusion's predicate, not the subject. The minor premise includes the conclusion's subject. So we're actually dealing with two *minor premises* in this question... "giving them [ie patients] access" identifies the third sentence as a minor premise. "no patients" in the last sentence identifies that sentence as another minor premise.

The major premises are not actually present, which is how we know we're dealing with enthymemes and not syllogisms in this question. The two unstated major premises are: "legal rights (predicate) that waste time of the medical staff should not exist" and "legal rights (predicate) that no one will exercise should not exist." These unstated major premises are also assumptions that the speaker makes, so it's useful to be able to identify them for those questions.