This is a tricky question as it requires you to understand what is functioning as a conclusion and what is a premise. Here's a breakdown of each argument:
Rifka: Premise: We would only need to stop and ask for directions if we were lost. Premise (implicit): We are not lost. Conclusion: We do not need to stop and ask for directions.
Craig: Premise: We are lost. Premise (implicit): If lost, you need to stop and ask for directions. Conclusion: We need to stop and ask for directions.
Answer (B) is correct because it shows that Craig is denying Rifka's implicit premise that they are not lost and thus arriving at the opposite conclusion that they do need to stop for directions.
Answer (C) is incorrect because Craig does not accept the truth of Rifka's premises. Rather, Rifka thinks they are not lost while Craig thinks they are.
