Top Law Schools

This question is really easy but it really threw me off because

1) I thought, and still think, that the last sentence is a conclusion

2) The correct answer says it refutes a premise, but there is no explicit premise, there is an implied premise that "only humans are capable of obeying" moral rules, which I thought refute a "premise" do not apply to. I looked around explanations for this and it seems like some people interpreted the last sentence to be a premise and conclusion, but in identifying the conclusion sort of question, we would have considered the entire sentence a conclusion as qualifiers of conclusions are often considered as part of the conclusion, i.e., A because Y is the conclusion, not just A.

Can someone comment on my thinking process here? Does premise refer to implicit premises? or we ought to interpret the last sentence as a premise + conclusion

The premise being referred to is explicitly mentioned in the argument ie) that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules. The conclusion is that it would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights based on the aforementioned premise.

A is correct because it describes what the argument does; it uses the examples of wolves/foxes/dogs and how there's some element of morality being displayed through their actions and how these examples refute the premise that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules.