@LSATChris The word "proposal" is not pointing to a conclusion, nor is it related to quantifiers like many/all/some. In the prompt, the clearest indication of the coming conclusion is the word "so" which leads us to the argument's claim that "the only acceptable solution is to fine burglar alarm system owners the cost of 45 minutes of police time for each false alarm their systems generate." In determining which part of the argument is the conclusion and which is a premise, it is often helpful to take a step back and think "which part supports the other?" The supporting part will be the premise, and what it supports will be the conclusion.
In this case, the argument is as follows:
Major Premise 1: A high rate of false burglar alarms causes a big drain on resources, mainly police time. Major Premise 2: Burglar alarms are effective at deterring robbery. Conclusion: There is only one solution to this problem, which is fining system owners for false alarms.
The correct answer, choice C, correctly identifies the role of Major Premise 2 in the argument. The "obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners" that it refers to is the option to get rid of all burglar alarms. However, the fact that they are effective at preventing harm provides a reason to keep them, which leads us to the conclusion. So, the word "proposal" in this case is making reference to an unstated option that the 2nd Premise helps to eliminate in support of the argument's claim.
Does this help? Please reach out with any additional questions.
