Thanks for your question, @Andre. This is an Argument Structure logical reasoning question, which requires us to carefully examine each and every part of the text in the stimulus and identify the role or function it plays.
Remember that a conclusion is an assertion supported by one or more premises.
Here, a consumer advocate is speaking. It's always good to notice who the speaker is, if one is identified, because it can help us make sure we are understanding his or her statement correctly. When a consumer advocate is speaking, we can usually expect to find some kind of assertion about what steps can and should be taken to protect consumers.
The first sentence of this stimulus is the conclusion: the toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose.
Why? In other words, what support is offered for this assertion?
Premise: The only labels currently required indicate just the age range for which a toy is intended.
Premise: Although the current toy labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys,
Premise: parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels [also] provided explicit safety information.
See how each of the statements I have marked as a premise help to support the overall assertion or conclusion drawn?
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
