Preptest 53, Section 1, #14, Int. Conc. introduced by since? Forum

[secretad]

This is a role question.

It wants us to find out what role "Television is so important politically and culturally" plays in this argument.

I look back to the argument and first identify the main conclusion, which is that the approach of thinking that a television set should be thought of as nothing more than a toaster with pictures and that the market should determine what is seen on television is too simple (a mouthful I know).

The phrase "Television is so important politically and culturally" is introduced by the word since. How in the WORLD is that an intermediate conclusion ???? When does since EVER introduce a conclusion? Since introduced a PREMISE? I know that an intermediate conclusion is a premise, but would not this phrase be a premise of what was stated right before, "some governmental control is needed?"

[EarlCat]

The phrase "Television is so important politically and culturally" is introduced by the word since. How in the WORLD is that an intermediate conclusion ???? When does since EVER introduce a conclusion? Since introduced a PREMISE? I know that an intermediate conclusion is a premise, but would not this phrase be a premise of what was stated right before, "some governmental control is needed?"

I think you answered your own question. An intermediate conclusion is a conclusion that serves as a premise for another conclusion.

A therefore B therefore C (or in this case, C since B since A). B is the intermediate conclusion.

[secretad]

How can a conclusion be introduced by since? This is a premise that supports an intermediate conclusion is it not?

The main conclusion is that the approach is too simple.

The intermediate conclusion is "some governmental control is needed"

The support for that intermediate conclusion is in the premise of "since television is so important politically and culturally."

How am I wrong on this one?

[mac35352]

The main conclusion is that some governmental control is needed.
Read the answer choices and tell us what is wrong with D.
It is the intermediate conclusion that links the main conclusion to the rest of the argument and discredits the view of those who think a TV is a toaster over with pictures.

[secretad]

It makes sense if you have the main conclusion as "some governmental control is needed" rather than "saying the approach is too simple."

How can one determine what the main conclusion would be in this case?

[mac35352]

[quote="secretad"]It makes sense if you have the main conclusion as "some governmental control is needed" rather than "saying the approach is too simple."

How can one determine what the main conclusion would be in this case?[/quote]
What is the passage trying to say? Is the author trying to make an argument around the toaster oven-TV approach is too simplistic or around some governmental control is needed?
What information is he presenting on the premises? Is it to argue for the simplystic approach of toaster-TV?
Try to understand the argument before you read the answer choices.

[secretad]

I meant to say how do you know if the main conclusion is that "the approach is too simple" or if it is "some governmental control is needed."

It seems like that is subjective. Maybe the author's main point is that the one approach is too simple. That's the focus?

It reminds me of many stimuli concerning this idea of a long drawn out paragraph with the conclusion being "but this is approach/belief is mistaken..."

The conclusion in those stimuli is that the belief is mistaken, not anything else. Why can't this one have the main conclusion be that the one approach is too simple?

[mac35352]

I meant to say how do you know if the main conclusion is that "the approach is too simple" or if it is "some governmental control is needed."

It seems like that is subjective. Maybe the author's main point is that the one approach is too simple. That's the focus?

It reminds me of many stimuli concerning this idea of a long drawn out paragraph with the conclusion being "but this is approach/belief is mistaken..."

The conclusion in those stimuli is that the belief is mistaken, not anything else. Why can't this one have the main conclusion be that the one approach is too simple?

I don't think that the author is trying to convince you that that approach is too simplistic as much as he is trying to convince you that there must be some guvernment control.

[suspicious android]

I meant to say how do you know if the main conclusion is that "the approach is too simple" or if it is "some governmental control is needed."

It seems like that is subjective. Maybe the author's main point is that the one approach is too simple. That's the focus?

It reminds me of many stimuli concerning this idea of a long drawn out paragraph with the conclusion being "but this is approach/belief is mistaken..."

The conclusion in those stimuli is that the belief is mistaken, not anything else. Why can't this one have the main conclusion be that the one approach is too simple?

You have the very familiar pattern which you noted, in which a viewpoint is expressed and then dismissed, therefore a conclusion of the argument is "this approach is too simple". Why does the passage go on from there? To tell us that government control is necessary, and several reasons to support that idea. So in the end we get two statements that are supported by other statements: "this approach [market forces controlling television] is too simple" and "some government control is necessary".

What is the relationship of those two statements in isolation? Would it make sense to say that because some government control is necessary, then allowing market forces to control the situation must be too simple? Huh? That's a weird leap. What about saying that since the market approach is inadequate, we must have some governmental control? The latter makes much more sense; that's what the argument is actually trying to say.