spoilers. but ive stated it in general terms this is from PT 58 LRsection 1, number 13
ok so ive never gotten a main conclusion question wrong but this one stumped me. not sure why
so the basic structure is in order to A, you must B.
THEN the second sentence says, you can enable B by doing C...and THIS is the main conclusion of the argument.
then the last sentence explains furhter the second sentence.
what im confused about is....i thought the second sentence was supporting the first because its telling you HOW you can do that..so how is it the conclusion?
i can see in regular conversation,, in hindsight, that it could somehow be the conclusion..but still havent grasped it 100%? or maybe not at all -_-
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: dm1683, Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests