Support According to the proposed Factory Safety Act, a company may operate an automobile factory only if that factory is registered as a class B factory. ██ ██████████ ███████ █ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ █████ █ ███████ ████████ ████████████ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████████
The author concludes that an automobile-manufacturing factory could not postpone safety inspections under a proposed Act. This is because the Act would require all automobile-manufacturing factories to register as a class B factories. Furthermore, under the Act, a class B factory may not postpone inspections.
The author draws a conclusion by combining two premises given by the Act. If a type of factory must be registered in a general class, then a given rule of that general class—in this case, punctual safety inspections—must apply to that type of factory.
The argument proceeds by
pointing out how ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████████████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ██ ███████
considering two possible ███████████████ ██ █ ████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███
showing that the █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████████ ███████████
showing that two █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████
pointing out that ██ █ █████████ ███████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████