> It says that the product of X and V is greater than or equal to the sum of X and V. Conclusion 2 is that the sum of X and V is less than the product of X and V. How could the latter claim be false if the former premise is true?

Suppose X is 0 and V is 0. The product of X and V is 0 which is indeed less than or equal to 0 - 0 = 0. Substituting V and X both for zero in (V - X) < (V * X) gives us (0 - 0) < (0 * 0) which simplifies to 0 < 0, which is false.