Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply

easily eliminate B, C & E
B - first is not a baseless emotional appeal
C - first is not contain unimportant information
E - second is not designed to undermine
between A & D - first is not a scientific fact, so can eliminate A
Answer D

Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply observe the reactions of animals when subjected to various pain causing procedures. Since all humans agree that bad things should be avoided and most agree that pain is bad, there is no compelling reason to subject animals to any sort of scientific experimentation.

The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the argument above?

A. The first statement is a scientific fact offered to support the conclusion reached in the second statement. - wrong
The first statement is a scientific fact - False -> it is a intermediate conclusion of ethicist
Second is the conclusion - True ->

B. The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion while the first statement is a baseless emotional appeal. - wrong
The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion - True
first statement is a baseless emotional appeal - False -> Ethicist offers justification ('observe the reactions of animals'). It is also not an emotional appeal

C. The second statement is the conclusion the argument is structured to lead to while the first statement contains unimportant information. - wrong
The second statement is the conclusion the argument - True
first statement contains unimportant information - False -> The first is the intermediate conclusion and it is important.

D. The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion while the first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion. - Correct
The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion - True
first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion - True

E. The first statement is a conclusion that the second statement is designed to undermine. - Wrong
first statement is a conclusion - False -> Its a subsidiary conclusion
second statement is designed to undermine - False -> The second statement doesn't undermine the first statement. The first statement supports the conclusion which is the second statement

A. The first statement is a scientific fact its not a fact, its a premise, authors opinionoffered to support the conclusion reached in the second statement.conclusion is reached in the second statement though
B. The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusionsecond statement is the main conclusion while the first statement is a baseless emotional appeal.too extreme, its basis/premise for the argument
C. The second statement is the conclusion the argument is structured to lead to while the first statement contains unimportant information.seond st is conclusion but first is the premise
D. The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion while the first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion.correct. the first statement can be a subsidary conclusion as its something that author has concluded
E. The first statement is a conclusion that the second statement is designed to undermine. both statements are on the same side of the argument. not undermining or contradicting


IMO D