Struggling with how to properly breakdown principle rules

@Darden, great question. "Should" and "wish" are not conditional logic indicators; rather, they're words that show us the author's attitude about what ought to be done. The author thinks that giving kids a musical education is something parents should do if they want their kids to be good at music. She notes that a good music education often entails giving kids formal instruction, so the author makes the conclusion that parents MUST provide their kids with formal instruction if they want them to become good at music. The problem here is that the conclusion is that kids NEED formal instruction as a component of a strong foundation in music, but the premise of the argument merely established that formal instruction is OFTEN a component of a good musical education. This leaves open the possibility that there are other methods in which a kid could get a good musical education. This is the big hole in the argument. (D) says, "formal instruction might not always be a part of a good musical education" (D) looks great, as it describes the flaw we identified. The argument is merely stating that formal instruction is often a component of a good musical education, and then attempts to make the conclusion that formal instruction is needed for a solid foundation, which is a flawed leap in logic. Thus, (D) is the correct answer. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Thank you so much for your response! I greatly appreciate it.