Page 1 of 1
Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:31 pm
by chicagocubsrule
When encountering complex arguments, I can't always distinguish between the main conclusion and the subsidiary conclusion. Other then the fact that the sub-conclusion will act as a premise for the main conclusion, is there anything else I should know to help me make this distinction?
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:41 pm
by EricC/O'11
Typically subsidiary conclusions have a more restrictive scope than the main conclusion. The sub conclusion may have some elements of the premises, but not all. Try and decipher which conclusion is the most sweeping, and that will most likely be your overall conclusion.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:23 am
by MLBrandow
chicagocubsrule,
In Logical Reasoning, generally whenever a stimulus contains two conclusions, the MC vs. SC concept is tested. In most cases, the subsidiary conclusion is the last sentence in the stimulus and preceded by "Thus," "Therefore," or another conclusion indicator. Be on the lookout, and think like a test maker! When in doubt, go with the first one by frequency.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:09 am
by n4sir1999
MLBrandow wrote:chicagocubsrule,
In most cases, the subsidiary conclusion is the last sentence in the stimulus and preceded by "Thus," "Therefore," or another conclusion indicator. Be on the lookout, and think like a test maker! When in doubt, go with the first one by frequency.
Don't you mean main conclusion is generally the last sentence in the stimulus...
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:11 am
by LSATonMe
i think he
did mean the SC is in the last sentence, preceded by a conclusion indicator, generally when they test the SC vs MC a.k.a. role, MOR-AP etc. I agree that this is generally the case, but caution to make any definitive rules.
When they are NOT testing this type, this is generally not the case in the STIM. Again, certainly not always the rule in either case.
n4sir1999 wrote:MLBrandow wrote:chicagocubsrule,
In most cases, the subsidiary conclusion is the last sentence in the stimulus and preceded by "Thus," "Therefore," or another conclusion indicator. Be on the lookout, and think like a test maker! When in doubt, go with the first one by frequency.
Don't you mean main conclusion is generally the last sentence in the stimulus...
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:10 pm
by the_assassin
As discussed previously, the premise supports the conclusion, hence
the arrow from the premise to the conclusion. By comparison, a
complex argument takes an initial conclusion and then uses it as a
premise for another conclusion:
Conclusion
Conclusion/Premise
Premise
This is from the Logical reasoning bible. Hope this helps.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:05 pm
by idrinkcoffee
I always ask myself:
Is this BEING SUPPORTED by something? (A conclusion must be supported by something else in the argument. Otherwise it's just a fact/premise.)
Is this SUPPORTING something else? (The conclusion will never support another fact.)
If it does both, it's an intermediate conclusion.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:05 pm
by rmyoun06
chicagocubsrule wrote:When encountering complex arguments, I can't always distinguish between the main conclusion and the subsidiary conclusion. Other then the fact that the sub-conclusion will act as a premise for the main conclusion, is there anything else I should know to help me make this distinction?
Honestly, I'm not sure what this even means, exactly. I've never heard this terminology before.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:43 am
by chicagocubsrule
Thanks guys for the insightful responses.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:08 am
by aquarium_drinker
idrinkcoffee wrote:I always ask myself:
Is this BEING SUPPORTED by something? (A conclusion must be supported by something else in the argument. Otherwise it's just a fact/premise.)
Is this SUPPORTING something else? (The conclusion will never support another fact.)
If it does both, it's an intermediate conclusion.
Testmasters?
This rule of thumb has been useful for me.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:59 pm
by blhblahblah
use the WHY/BECAUSE TEST
if it doesn't make sense, swap and try again.
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:25 am
by jesuis
LSATonMe wrote:i think he
did mean the SC is in the last sentence, preceded by a conclusion indicator, generally when they test the SC vs MC a.k.a. role, MOR-AP etc. I agree that this is generally the case, but caution to make any definitive rules.
When they are NOT testing this type, this is generally not the case in the STIM. Again, certainly not always the rule in either case.
n4sir1999 wrote:MLBrandow wrote:chicagocubsrule,
In most cases, the subsidiary conclusion is the last sentence in the stimulus and preceded by "Thus," "Therefore," or another conclusion indicator. Be on the lookout, and think like a test maker! When in doubt, go with the first one by frequency.
Don't you mean main conclusion is generally the last sentence in the stimulus...
Can someone please clarify what MOR-AP and STIM stand for? and give any relvant info regarding their effect/relationship with Sub-Conclusion and Main-Conclusion?
Re: Distinguishing between Main Conclusion & Sub-Conclusion?
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:51 am
by Robert398
The subsidiary conclusion will act as a premise for the main conclusion - the main conclusion is often not the last sentence in the stimulus, precisely to see whether you are able to distinguish between a SC and a MC when they are not in intuitive order (i.e. when the SC does not come before the MC in terms of order in the stimulus).