Role of a statement question Forum

[winnatech]

Hi,

For role of a statement questions, does the stimulus always have an explicit conclusion?

Thanks.

[3|ink]

Why should it have to? I'd say it's probably not necessary. However, I don't have the historical data in front of me.

[Cromartie]

Hi,

For role of a statement questions, does the stimulus always have an explicit conclusion?

Thanks.

Based on the ones I remember, the stimulus always has a conclusion, but the conclusion is not always explicit (if by "explicit" you mean clearly/unequivocally stated).

[winnatech]

I see, thank you. Could you give me a general idea of how a non-explicit conclusion be worded?

[3|ink]

'Some Scientists argue that we can conclude the following relationship from what is known about conditions X and Y: X can cause Y, since Y always occurs after X has occured. However, it is also known that Z can cause both X and Y and is known to do so at varying times.'

The implied conclusion would be: 'We may not be able to conclude that X causes Y from what is known of X and Y.'

This is not perfectly written, but I think the point is clear.

[Cromartie]

'Some Scientists argue that we can conclude the following relationship from what is known about conditions X and Y: X can cause Y, since Y always occurs after X has occured. However, it is also known that Z can cause both X and Y and is known to do so at varying times.'

The implied conclusion would be: 'We may not be able to conclude that X causes Y from what is known of X and Y.'

This is not perfectly written, but I think the point is clear.

This is a perfect example. My only minor edit would be to change the bolded to "cannot". But yeah, it's a great example of a conclusion that's not explicitly stated.

[winnatech]

Great, thanks!

If you don't mind, I have another question: Is it safe to say that main point = conclusion? Sometimes, even when I read a line from the stimulus and am unsure as to whether it is the conclusion, I can still figure out whether that line is the main point of the stimulus. If main point and conclusion are indeed the same, that would seem to make things easier for me.

[Cromartie]

Great, thanks!

If you don't mind, I have another question: Is it safe to say that main point = conclusion? Sometimes, even when I read a line from the stimulus and am unsure as to whether it is the conclusion, I can still figure out whether that line is the main point of the stimulus. If main point and conclusion are indeed the same, that would seem to make things easier for me.

Yes. If the stimulus is an argument, the main point = the conclusion.

[3|ink]

Great, thanks!

If you don't mind, I have another question: Is it safe to say that main point = conclusion? Sometimes, even when I read a line from the stimulus and am unsure as to whether it is the conclusion, I can still figure out whether that line is the main point of the stimulus. If main point and conclusion are indeed the same, that would seem to make things easier for me.

Main point and conclusion are ALMOST synonymous. However, if a conclusion is a subsidiary conclusion, it is not the main point.

Example:

A->B | All A's are B's
B->C | All B's are C's
C->D | All C's are D's

We can make a few conclusions from these facts.

Conclusion 1: All A's are C's
Conclusion 2: All B's are D's
Conclusion 3: All A's are D's

Conclusions 1 and 2 are subsidiary conclusions. A subsidiary conclusion is a conclusion that serves as a premise to another conclusion. Since we use conclusions 1 and 2 to reach conclusion 3, they are subsidiary. A subsidiary conclusion is never the main point. The main point (or ‘main conclusion’) will be the statement that is supported by all of the other statements, and therefore supports no other statement in the stimulus.

[JohnnyTrojan08]

If you don't mind, I have another question: Is it safe to say that main point = conclusion? If main point and conclusion are indeed the same, that would seem to make things easier for me.

They indicate the same "task," identify the main conclusion. Here's an example of how to approach them so you always find them. http://www.zenof180.com/2010/02/logical ... rd_16.html

And if you need help with "[piece] plays [role]" in argument, here's another set of explanations: http://www.zenof180.com/2010/08/logical ... ndard.html

[Cromartie]

Great, thanks!

If you don't mind, I have another question: Is it safe to say that main point = conclusion? Sometimes, even when I read a line from the stimulus and am unsure as to whether it is the conclusion, I can still figure out whether that line is the main point of the stimulus. If main point and conclusion are indeed the same, that would seem to make things easier for me.

Main point and conclusion are ALMOST synonymous. However, if a conclusion is a subsidiary conclusion, it is not the main point.

Example:

A->B | All A's are B's
B->C | All B's are C's
C->D | All C's are D's

We can make a few conclusions from these facts.

Conclusion 1: All A's are C's
Conclusion 2: All B's are D's
Conclusion 3: All A's are D's

Conclusions 1 and 2 are subsidiary conclusions. A subsidiary conclusion is a conclusion that serves as a premise to another conclusion. Since we use conclusions 1 and 2 to reach conclusion 3, they are subsidiary. A subsidiary conclusion is never the main point. The main point (or ‘main conclusion’) will be the statement that is supported by all of the other statements, and therefore supports no other statement in the stimulus.

This is true, but I think he was asking if the conclusion of the stimulus is the same as the main point of the stimulus.

[winnatech]

Great, thanks again all for the replies!

[JohnnyTrojan08]

This is true, but I think he was asking if the conclusion of the stimulus is the same as the main point of the stimulus.

We agree on a lot. Hope you do better than I did on my first LSAT.

[3|ink]

Great, thanks!

If you don't mind, I have another question: Is it safe to say that main point = conclusion? Sometimes, even when I read a line from the stimulus and am unsure as to whether it is the conclusion, I can still figure out whether that line is the main point of the stimulus. If main point and conclusion are indeed the same, that would seem to make things easier for me.

Main point and conclusion are ALMOST synonymous. However, if a conclusion is a subsidiary conclusion, it is not the main point.

Example:

A->B | All A's are B's
B->C | All B's are C's
C->D | All C's are D's

We can make a few conclusions from these facts.

Conclusion 1: All A's are C's
Conclusion 2: All B's are D's
Conclusion 3: All A's are D's

Conclusions 1 and 2 are subsidiary conclusions. A subsidiary conclusion is a conclusion that serves as a premise to another conclusion. Since we use conclusions 1 and 2 to reach conclusion 3, they are subsidiary. A subsidiary conclusion is never the main point. The main point (or ‘main conclusion’) will be the statement that is supported by all of the other statements, and therefore supports no other statement in the stimulus.

This is true, but I think he was asking if the conclusion of the stimulus is the same as the main point of the stimulus.

Doh. I guess I missed the main point of his question.

[Anaconda]

'Some Scientists argue that we can conclude the following relationship from what is known about conditions X and Y: X can cause Y, since Y always occurs after X has occured. However, it is also known that Z can cause both X and Y and is known to do so at varying times.'

The implied conclusion would be: 'We may not be able to conclude that X causes Y from what is known of X and Y.'

This is not perfectly written, but I think the point is clear.

So basically the implication is that Z causes X first and Y afterwards? Clearly a flaw that confuses correlation w/ cause and effect.

So the conclusion is implied since we can assume the speaker here is indirectly pointing out the faulty reasoning of some scientists?

If the stimulus started off with "We can conclude that..." then what would be the conclusion of the stimulus? So we get:

"We can conclude the following relationship from what is known about conditions X and Y: X can cause Y, since Y always occurs after X has occured. However, it is also known that Z can cause both X and Y and is known to do so at varying times."

What is the conclusion now? (This would so obviously be a flaw in reasoning question!) My guess is that it's just a faulty pair of facts.

Am I just overanalyzing this?

[Cromartie]

This is true, but I think he was asking if the conclusion of the stimulus is the same as the main point of the stimulus.

We agree on a lot. Hope you do better than I did on my first LSAT.

Well, it will actually be a retake for me. First take was a 167, but my preparation then consisted of taking 4 PT's from the first 10 LSAT PT book. Got a -9 on LG. If only I had known about TLS back then!

So now I practically need a 180 to give myself a shot at HYS, since they average. I am actually going to steal your strategy of taking 2 8-section PT's a week starting in September. Hopefully stealing your method will result in me getting the same score as you.