Conclusions

@kms0121, Happy to help. It sounds like you're wanting some help on drawing out inferences. The question we're looking at is a must be true question type, so we need to piece together the premises to see what we can figure out. From this stimulus, we have no volcanic action - >no renewal no renewal - >lots of craters We can link these statements together: no volcanic action - >no renewal - >lots of craters the contrapositive is not lots of craters - >renewal - >volcanic action We know that Europa (as well as some other cold planetary bodies) have very few craters. Using the contrapositive of the conditional chain, we know that Europa satisfies the sufficient condition (not lots of craters), so we can conclude that Europa has volcanic activity. Based on our diagramming, we've arrived at a conclusion about Europa and other cold bodies. Let's see if our anticipated conclusion is in the answer choices. It's almost a guarantee that it will because with must be true questions, one answer choice has support from the stimulus, and the other four choices do not have support. (E) says, "Some very cold planetary bodies have cores that generate enough heat to cause volcanic action." This is precisely the conclusion we made. We know Europa is cold, and it has to have volcanic action since it doesn't have very many craters. This is the correct answer choice. If you're having trouble on these questions, focus on making sure you are diagramming when you're able to. For this question, diagramming the conditional statements makes it much easier to see the inference we can make. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

can you explain no volcanic action -----> no renewal? isn't that not how you set up that unless statement?