70.4.17 why isn't it d?
70.1.19 why isn't it c?
Having issues with parallel reasoning
Not sure if you're still sticking on these, but thought I'd offer my thoughts.
The original argument goes like this:
- PREMISE: All [Furniture Labyrinth stuff] is [well-crafted]
some [halogen lamps] are [Furniture Labyrinth stuff]
CONCLUSION: some [halogen lamps] are [well-crafted]
We know that we need an ALL statement and a SOME statement leading to a SOME conclusion.
The kicker on (D) is interpreting "every lake nearby is teeming with healthy fish". At first glance, this seems to fit our need for an ALL statement. But it's the wrong kind of 'all'! This statement gives us information about all the lakes - what would need would be information about all the fish in those lakes, just like the original argument gave us information about all the things on display at Furniture Labyrinth.
Given that what we really need to know is about the fish, we have to look at "teeming with healthy fish" - that just means that some of the fish in the lakes are healthy - not necessarily ALL of them. So, annoyingly, this statement is actually just a SOME statement, with regard to the fish, and breaks our parallelism.
- PREMISE: some [minnows] are [fish in nearby lakes]
some [fish in nearby lakes] are [healthy]
CONCLUSION: some [minnows] are [healthy]
As for 70.1.19, the answer IS C. If you meant something else I'd be happy to help!