PT151 · S2 · Q19 Munroe was elected in a landslide

We know from the indicator words where to find our conclusion, the very last claim. "So, because [support], [conclusion]" Are either of the first two claims the Conditional premise we're looking for? Nope. No conditional premise, so no bueno. (notice how this answer is trying to appeal to us by using similar wording to draw its conclusion: "the only conclusion one can draw" is a very similar sounding conclusion to the original's "one cannot avoid the conclusion". Sometimes the correct answer mimics wording from the original argument, but usually superficial similarities like same topic or same language is how they write a trap answer)

Here is what we were looking for premise: here's a rule premise: here's a fact that triggers the rule. conclusion: here's (part of) the outcome of rule. Does this argument provide a conditional rule? Yes, with "only if", in the final claim. "Only if" always indicates the Right side (necessary) condition. cafe closed → facing strong competition This rule doesn't have an AND in the outcome, so if we're guessing aggressively, we should check out now. If we want to go further than our second premise should be factually establishing that the trigger happened. Do we have a premise that says "the cafe closed"? Not really, but it's sort of an embedded truth in the first sentence. That, again, is a weak match, so we would bail unless we were desperate to make this work. If we're being charitable, then we have this so far: premise: here's a rule closed → facing strong competition premise: here's a fact that triggers the rule. closed. conclusion: here's (part of) the outcome of rule. Our conclusion should then be "we must conclude that they were facing strong competition." However, the first sentence here is the conclusion and it's definitely not saying that.

If we're peeking at conclusions to see if they match before even bothering to read the answer choice, this one would stick out as hopeless. Original conclusion: one can't avoid concluding X This conclusion: one can't rule out possibility of X Those are claims with completely different levels of strength. The original conclusion is certain of itself. This answer's conclusion is only saying something is possible. That would be enough to disqualify it. It does have a conditional premise, but the AND is on the trigger, not the outcome. "If" signifies a Left side (suff) condition. facing strong competition no reason and → for it to unsatisfied customer base remain open We could make it more like the original by contraposing, but then it would be an OR. some reason for not facing strong comp it to remain open → or satisfied customer base We're also going to have a mismatch between the factual premise "the Park Street Cafe closed" and the trigger of this rule "there was some reason for the Cafe to remain open". So it's hopeless top to bottom.

This does have a conditional premise, a factual premise, and a certain conclusion, so it might be worth reading. It's hard to see quickly, but it actually has a third premise, so if we saw that we could bail. What's our conditional premise? staying a lack of competition open → AND satisfied customer base The rest of the argument should establish the trigger happened and then conclude one of the outcomes, for example: The Park Street Café has remained open. Thus we must conclude that there was a lack of competition. Instead, the factual premise contradicts the trigger. And then the bonus premise no one asked for says "there was both competition and an unsatisfied customer base".