Top Law Schools

How to differate a sub-conclusion and the conclusion?

For example, December 2003 LSAT, section 4 queston 18 has two conclusions. How would you know if there even is a sub-conclusion, let alone differate which one would be the sub or the conclusion? (i would want help understanding both concerns!)

thank you very much, I hope/kinda sure this question needs to be answered by others!

I don't have my copies of the PTs with me, so this is generic.

If there are two conclusions (both from the same viewpoint - if you're between "some critics'" conclusion and the author's, then the relevant one is the author's - unless the question asks about another one), then one is offered as proof for the other.

So here's my trick:
Conclusion A and B, one of them a subsidiary conclusion.

First, say, "A, therefore B."
Then, say, "B, therefore A."

Whichever one makes more sense, the statement after "therefore" is your main conclusion.

How I think of it is sub-conclusion really is just another premise drawn from other premises.

Take any sentence and ask yourself, is it drawn from evidence provided elsewhere in the stimulus? If so, then it is either a sub-conclusion or conclusion. If not, then it's just a normal premise. Then ask yourself is there any other sentence that may be drawn from evidence provided by the sentence in question. If so, then it is a sub-conclusion and if not, then it is a conclusion.

peke wrote:How I think of it is sub-conclusion really is just another premise drawn from other premises.

Take any sentence and ask yourself, is it drawn from evidence provided elsewhere in the stimulus? If so, then it is either a sub-conclusion or conclusion. If not, then it's just a normal premise. Then ask yourself is there any other sentence that may be drawn from evidence provided by the sentence in question. If so, then it is a sub-conclusion and if not, then it is a conclusion.

This is it. A sub-conclusion is supported, and supports another statement.

ioannisk wrote:How to differate a sub-conclusion and the conclusion?

For example, December 2003 LSAT, section 4 queston 18 has two conclusions. How would you know if there even is a sub-conclusion, let alone differate which one would be the sub or the conclusion? (i would want help understanding both concerns!)

thank you very much, I hope/kinda sure this question needs to be answered by others!

So here's how I look at the stim:

• Human haven't evolved much since civilization changed our diets.
  Therefore, we are biologically adapted to wild foods.
  Not eating a diet consisting of wild food types has caused problems.
  Therefore, the more wild foods we eat, the more healthy we are.
  

So underlined we have our premises, italicized the subconclusion and bolded the main conclusion. Let's see how the pieces fit together. Premise one supports both conclusions reasonably. The second premise, though, supports the bolded conclusion moreso than the italicized conclusion. Now look at the way the two conclusions fit together:
1. The more wild foods we eat, the healthier we are, therefore we are biologically adapted to wild foods.
2. We are biologically adapted to wild foods, therefore the more wild foods we eat, the healthier we are.

So when we look at the way the premises and conclusions fit together, it steers toward the last sentence of the stimulus being the primary conclusion.