Identifying a subsidiary conclusion

Hi @kswope, Thanks for the question! This is an important distinction to know for these kinds of questions. A premise is an unsupported, factual statement that we're just given. A subsidiary conclusion, on the other hand, is a premise that is supported by other premises, but itself is not the main conclusion. Here's a simple example: Premise: It is raining. Subsidiary conclusion: It is wet outside. Main conclusion: I will not leave the house. The main point I want to make is that I won't leave the house. Why? Well, we're told that it's raining. No other premise supports this, it's just a fact that it's raining outside. We then come to our second premise: it's wet outside. But we know this because of premise 1 - we know it's wet outside because of the rain. And the fact that it's wet outside is what gets us to our main conclusion. In this example, the set-up is similar: Premise: Red paint was applied after painting was completed, and it wasn't mixed in Veronese's workshop Subsidiary conclusion (supported by premise): Someone tampered with Veronese's painting Main conclusion (supported by subsidiary conclusion): The decision to restore the cloak to green was justified And here we can see that a subsidiary conclusion is both supported by premises and supports further conclusions, whereas a premise doesn't receive support from other premises. Hope this helps!