I think these would also all be valid conclusions as well:

A --m--> B

A --m--> C

---------------

A ←s→ B and C

so if we said a majority of (most) dogs have brown fur (BF), and a majority of dogs have green eyes (GE), we can conclude that at least one dog that has brown fur has green eyes too. Or put another way: some dogs have both brown fur and green eyes

Dogs ←s→ BF and GE

All A ----> B or C or B+C

we can also conclude that all dogs have either green eyes, or brown fur, or both

Dogs ----> BF or GE or BF+GE

/A ----> /B and /C

and we can say that no dogs have neither brown fur nor green eyes

/Dogs ----> /BF and /GE

(put another way: no dogs lack both brown fur and green eyes)

Whiners? Really?? Try this: Make B the conclusion at the end of the stimulus and read it from start to finish. Then you should immediately recognize that B is really asking you to almost make a COUNTERINTUITIVE leap despite the bulk of the stimulus information, not because of it:

A dairy farmer has great concern for his cows’ environmental conditions. He has recently made improvements that increase their comfort, such as providing them with special sleeping mattresses. These changes are intended to increase blood flow to the udder. This increased blood flow would boost milk output and thus increase profits. Therefore, farming practices introduced for the sake of maximizing profits can improve the living conditions of farm animals

When read like that it's actually a kind of jarring conclusion, like reverse-causation or affirming the necessary almost

So B forces us into an unsupported and unnecessary false dichotomy (solely for profit vs solely for caring), and then we're forced to choose one of those two because it's the only option left in the answers. Yes B is the correct answer. But B is not the obviously "better leap/stretch" of the two.

The farmer tells us himself he has great concern for the cows' living environment and that he's made multiple improvements to increase their comfort. And we don't know WHY he wants to increase blood flow to the udders, just that he does. So making the leap that he could have solely their reduced suffering in mind isn't completely unsupported. After all, he did just go on an awful lot about how much he cares about his cows' comfort for us to too easily conclude he must just be a greedy business man who puts profit ahead of everything else.... So B is the least bad answer, but it's not a good answer, and more importantly: it isn't the more obvious intuitive leap from the premises

If these were your only two options instead:

(B) Farming practices introduced for the sake of maximizing profits can improve the living conditions of farm animals.

(F) Farming practices introduced for the sake of improving the living conditions of farm animals can lead to increased profits.

You'd pretty clearly have more evidence taken directly from the stimulus to support the leap in F than the leap in B, because assuming increasing blood flow to the udders could just as easily be a pure comfort issue, or a medical requirement, that just has a side bonus of more milk isn't actually insane given the structure and content of the stimulus. But you certainly couldn't so offhandedly dismiss the assumption in F as ludicrous and invalid if you actually did have to rule it out on the test like this and defend B against it in this video

I'll explain why I think A is right and not B (which I chose), because I think it's a more complete/precise explanation than I've seen here yet

We're told buyers are likely to assume any large appliance they see in the home at viewing will be included at sale, so we have a moral obligation to AT THE VERY LEAST CORRECT this assumption

And we're told we have the freedom (this is the key) to accomplish that in two ways:

1. Remove the appliances (this stops the possibility of any assumption in the first place); or

2. Indicate in some other way that they're not included (which technically could allow the assumption to still happen first)

So the reason A is the only possibility is because we were given the freedom to indicate that the large appliances aren't included at any point before sale - but that could possibly be AFTER the buyer already assumed they'd be included. And clarifying before the sale that they aren't included - but after their assumption happened - would still fulfill both our moral obligation from the stimulus, as well as our principle in A

But if our principle requirement were B instead, that would obligate us to actually PREVENT the assumption - and our second option gives us the leeway to potentially not satisfy this principle while still meeting our moral obligation from the stimulus - and that can't happen

For B to work instead of A, we'd have to have not been given such freedom in the stimulus as to how we can fulfill our obligation - it would have to only give us options which would make the assumption by the buyer IMPOSSIBLE to begin with (like our 1st option of removing appliances does, but not our second). Or B could have said we're obliged to make sure buyers "don't continue assuming" instead of "do not assume," and that also would have made it correct

I have an issue with calling anything at all "context" instead of a premise. What's being called context here (and elsewhere) seems to just be premise(s) that are left for some kind of inference because some premises aren't explicit in the argument. When I see this question, I re-create the full argument with any implied premises (denoted with an asterisk below), for example:

P: Some people like green carnations on St. Pat's Day

P: Any green flower is rare

P/IC: Being flowers, green carnations are rare

P: White carnations can be dyed green easily

P: DYED CARNATIONS CAN SATISFY DEMAND*

C: Flower shops should stock up on white carnations to dye green

The "context" is actually a crucial premise in the conclusion, because otherwise - if missing - it would have to be inferred (such as in a Premise Set question) or else the conclusion comes completely out of nowhere

This expanded exercise while drilling also helps me identify other important possibilities for all arguments regarding other types of question stems, for instance:

- Strengthen/Must be True: People can't tell the dyed ones from the real ones, or don't care, etc.

- Weaken/Must be False: The green dye is never green enough to make people happy

- Principle: Dyeing flowers is always preferable to disappointing flower shoppers

- Inferred: White carnations are plentiful enough to satisfy green carnation demand

Is anyone else confused by calling some of the info context vs premise?

#help (Added by Admin)