Argument Form — “All good books help.” Given: “This book can help because all good books help.” What conclusion is logically safest?

Introduction / Context:
The statement uses a universal premise “All good books help” to claim “This book can help.” We must select the conclusion justified without committing a logical fallacy (like affirming the consequent).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Premise: For any x, if x is a good book, then x helps.
• Claim: This book helps (as asserted).
• No premise explicitly states that “this book is good.”

Concept / Approach:
From “All good books help,” it follows trivially that “Some good books help” (existential consequence of a universal claim, provided at least one good book exists). However, concluding “this book is good” from “this book helps” would be affirming the consequent and is invalid.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Option (d) is a conservative truth entailed by the universal if we accept there exists at least one good book (a reasonable reading in everyday discourse). The other options contradict the premise or assume unjustified specifics about “this book.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• (a) “This is not a good book” contradicts the appeal and is not entailed.
• (b) “This is a good book” is affirming the consequent.
• (c) “No good book helps” contradicts the universal premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Letting persuasive wording push you into affirming the consequent; always separate universal rules from claims about specific instances unless explicitly linked.

Final Answer:
Some good books help.