Ms. βββββββββββ βββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββββ β βββββββ βββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββ ββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ ββββββ βββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββ βββββββββ ββββββ βββ βββ ββββ ββββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββββββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββ βββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ βββ ββββββββ βββββ
The author concludes that Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damage on the farm, because it resulted from her actions and she could have expected that result.
The conclusion is an assignment of responsibility (payment), but we donβt know anything about what determines that responsibility. Why should Ms. Sandstrom have to pay? For the premises to lead to the conclusion, we need to know that if your actions lead to damage that you couldβve foreseen, then you must pay for that damage.
The argument's conclusion can be ββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββββ
One should pay βββ βββ ββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ βββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββ βββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββ
One should pay βββ ββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ βββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββ βββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββ βββββββ
It is unlikely ββββ βββ ββββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββββ βββββ ββββββββββ βββ βββ βββ ββββββ ββββ βββββββ
Ms. Sandstrom knew ββββ βββ ββββββ βββββ ββββββ βββββββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ βββββ
The Mendels believe ββββ βββ βββββββββ ββ ββββ ββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ