Here's my thinking for Question 2. The first statement is a minor premise for the sub-conclusion that companies want to maximize their profits. The second claim, because companies aim to maximize their profits is the sub-conclusion/major premise for the main conclusion of those companies that might produce such foods will now shift towards healthier alternatives. I'm thinking claim 1 is the minor premise because all companies aim to maximize their profits, therefore, they will now shift to produce healthier alternatives.

For Question 3 I thought, since the residents' reviews about the new park have been exceptionally good was the minor premise for the sub-conclusion because this park is vital for their community interaction. I thought that the city council will definitely consider its expansion was the main conclusion because it is what the city council will do.

For Question 4 I thought, and I think I'm correct even though the tutor didn't explicitly say, the costs for taxpayers who fail to file their returns on time are now much higher than it would have been to file them in a timely manner was the minor premise. I thought that because there was a therefore, since, it would naturally lead to the sub-conclusion, so since taxpayers value their earning and peace of mind would be sub-conclusion/major premise. Finally, those that might have missed the deadline will now strive to file on time would be the major conclusion. Or is my assumption that it wasn't explicit unreasonable?

Is it just me, or does the video explanation just skip over question 3

On Question 3, I found one sub-conclusion giving access will time wasting, but I thought that patients aren't going to ask for access to their records anyway would be a premise because it was just a reason for the main conclusion. I didn't see that it was another sub-conclusion.

Alright 5/5

5/5 Yes!!!

I originally thought Question 3 was an argument, but when I looked at the first claim it seemed to have nothing to do with argument, so I said it wasn't an argument. UGGH, I should have just left my original answer. 4/5

It seems to me that the assumptions only came from the conclusion. So when looking for the conclusion, should I be looking in the conclusion?

Practice makes perfect. Let's push through and get to where we want to go everyone!

The Disney argument is the strongest because it has two clearly laid out rules that the conclusion must follow either one. The way the stimulus is structured, there is only one option for the conclusion to follow.

The Tiger argument is second strongest because premise and the conclusion doesn't have the same airtight rules as the Disney argument. There are more ways for the argument to go and the premise and conclusion doesn't seem to be as strong or airtight.

The Trash Bin is the weakest because there is no satisfactory support for the conclusion that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party. The premises or the evidence is circumstantial at best.

Michael must be a good golfer. After all, he is a professional athlete.