Inference & conclusions

Pointing out practical and ethical concerns indicates that the author sees potential flaws or complications in the policy, showing they have reservations rather than giving full approval. Option A is wrong because a full endorsement would not focus heavily on these significant negative issues.

Implication questions require reading between the lines to find ideas that are logically supported by the text but not explicitly written down. Option A is incorrect because explicit statements are directly stated, whereas an implication is indirect and must be inferred.

Since some C are A, and every single A is also a B, those specific Cs that are As must also be Bs, making option A correct. A diagram for this topic isn't available yet — the worked example below walks the same reasoning step by step.

• !Option B is incorrect because we only know about 'some' C, not all of them, so we cannot generalize to the entire group.
• !Option A is incorrect because explicit statements are directly stated, whereas an implication is indirect and must be inferred.
• !Option A is wrong because a full endorsement would not focus heavily on these significant negative issues.
• !A counter-example weakens a universal claim by presenting a specific instance where the proposed rule fails to hold true.

Answer each from memory — you'll see instantly whether you're right and why.

Run a focused 10-question mini-mock on Inference & conclusions and see it stick.