Paraphrasing the MP

Hello @briannafigueroa, I use a "question and answer" strategy that helps me identify conclusions, sub-conclusions, and premises. To identify these pieces of the argument, we need to know which statements support which. Premises support conclusions, and not the other way around. This is not always obvious, so framing the argument in terms of questions and answers is helpful to me. Every argument follows this format: Conclusion Why? Because premise or Conclusion Why? Because sub-conclusion Why? Because premise In this argument, the conclusion is in the second sentence: there is not necessarily a connection between plucking gray hairs and negative attitudes toward the elderly. Why? 1. Because it is reasonable to like the elderly, yet dislike impaired eyesight and hearing. 2. Because one thing is immoral and the other is not. I can tell that these premises are meant to support the conclusion. They explain why there is not necessarily a connection. Notice that it doesn't work the other way around: Conclusion: Disliking the elderly is immoral, but disliking the aging process isn't. Why? Premise: Because there is not necessarily a connection between plucking gray hairs and disliking the elderly. This doesn't really make sense, because the "not necessarily a connection" statement is the main conclusion. It is not supposed to support anything else. This is how I identified it as the main idea, which is best expressed by answer choice B. A sub-conclusion, on the other hand, will support another conclusion.