Sounds easier said than done but I'll try

I just started an- WHOOSH

I think the more premises you have, the stronger you back up the concluding claim, provided that all the premises supports the claim and isnt just random statements. While the disney argument is ridiculus it has the strongest support for the conclusion, and provides a strong if this or that.

Tiger OG: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.

Tiger Interpretation: Not every item in the grocery store is healthy for daily consumption. After all, sodas have been linked to an increase in cancer.

Disney OG: Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass. Those who have offered ten goats’ worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app. All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy’s altar in the Magical Kingdom. Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club. He has a Genie+ pass yet he has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything. Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.

Disney Interpretation: Members of the Dungeons and Dragons fan club now have special key cards. If you sacrifice some dice to the goblins you can get the special key card on your phone. All other members must do a silly dance. Hillary is a member of the dungeons and dragons fan club. She has dice but never sacrificed any to the goblins. Therefore, Hillary must have done a silly dance to get the special key card.

Detective OG: The trash bin in the kitchen is toppled and its contents, including some leftover salmon from dinner, spilled. Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter, self-satisfied, licking his paw to clean his face the way he does after having eaten. My hypothesis is that Mr. Fat Cat is the guilty party, having intentionally knocked over the bin to access the fish within.

Detective Interpretation: My phone is missing but a hear a buzz. My dog is sitting near the table where my phone was. His eyes look at me guilty, tail tucked between his legs. The sound of my phone is coming from where he sits. My hypothesis is that my dog ate my phone.

Imagine a world where it's true that premise: "Preventing consumers from supporting fast fashion is unrealistic"

Therefor, we draw from that statement that conclusion: "Affordable stores that cater to lower and middle class consumers are known to rapidly produce styles based on current trends"

To me the two claims support each other. However, whether the claim is true or not is another story. Thanks for this example, is was a good practice of the skills we're learning.

Yes I agree, There is one idea that starts aka the premise. Then the next sentence backs up what was said aka the conclusion. 1 then 2.