Subsidiary conclusion/Main point

Hi @ejankow2, Thanks for the question! So let’s walk through this argument structure real quick. We’re told that the decision to restore some cloak from red to green is fully justified. Why? Because red was applied after the painting was completed and the red wasn’t mixed in the workshop. So it seems likely that someone else tampered with the painting. So we can represent this as follows: P1: Red was applied after the painting was completed/red not mixed in workshop Subconclusion: Someone else tampered with the painting Main conclusion: The decision to restore the painting from red to green is justified. And thus the main point is going to be the curator’s first sentence. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

These are horrendous questions that have no purpose!

Hello! @shunhe I thought from reading the explanation of the question, that the main conclusion of the statement was the last sentence because of the word "hence", while here you say it is the first sentence. I am confused as to which one is correct. Also I tried to use the strategy where one is X and the other Y, [it rained because I bought an umbrella; I bought an umbrella because it rained] and I got it wrong. How do I identify and differentiate between the subsidiary conclusion and the main conclusion. Thank you for your time!

@shunhe l also Used the x and the y example and also got the answer incorrect. Is there another way to Identify the difference between subsidiary conclusion and main conclusion?