Librarian: Some argue that the preservation grant we received should be used to restore our original copy of our tow...

Skylar on June 21, 2020

@kbernard, happy to help!

Let's break down this passage. First, a claim that some believe is introduced - that the preservation grant should be used to restore the original copy of the town's charter. This claim is supported by the premise that if the charter is not restored, it will soon deteriorate beyond repair. However, the librarian disagrees with this claim. The librarian makes a new claim (which is the librarian's main conclusion) that the preservation grant should be spent preserving scholarly documents instead of restoring the original town charter. This claim is supported by premises that the town charter has sentimental value but no scholarly value, that copies are readily available, and that the library is research based unlike a museum.

We are asked about the role of the claim that the charter will deteriorate if not restored.

(C) "It is a premise in an argument whose conclusion is rejected by the librarian's argument"
This is correct. The claim that the charter will deteriorate is offered as support for the claim that the grant should be used to restore the charter, which the librarian ultimately disagrees with.

(D) "It is a premise used to support the librarian's main conclusion"
This is incorrect. The claim that the charter will deteriorate is offered as support for the claim that the grant should be used to restore the charter, which is the opposite of what the librarian concludes. Remember, the librarian concludes that the preservation grant should be spent preserving scholarly documents instead of the charter.

Does that make sense? Hope it helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions!