Critical Reasoning

I'll tell OA after some discussions in this thread. I had difficulty in recognising conclusion and premise. Please help.

hey_thr67 wrote:I'll tell OA after some discussions in this thread. I had difficulty in recognising conclusion and premise. Please help.

Since you had problems identifying the structure, here's the break down of the argument:

Conclusion: As a genre, hip-hop is vastly underrated.

Counter-Premise1: Critics are right to question the violent and sometimes racist content of many hip-hop lyrics, as well as the mediocrity of some popular hip-hop.

Premise1(countering the counter-premise): The genre as a whole should not be dismissed as worthless just because portions of its sub-genres are potentially offensive or sub-par.

Premise2: The whole should never be judged by just one of its parts.

Once you know the structure, the answer is self-evident.

If you have problems identifying the conclusion, ask yourself this question:
What is the author trying to tell me?

Cheers!

IMO C :
1st is clearly a conclusion and 2nd one is supporting the premise that although one part is bad the whole should not be considered bad.. ( in simple language )

in option D : looks promising to me bt then realised there is no anology as such in 1st boldface ..