Subconclusions and Main Conlusions

[akanshachandra]

Hello! I'm having some difficulty with differentiating between the two because as I was learning the "Method of Reasoning" section from the logical reasoning bible, at the end of chapter 14 I came across question 4, about the nutritionist's argument. Based on the bible's explanation, I assumed that the first sentence was the conclusion since you all stated that when there are two conclusions present, the main is usually found in the first two sentences and the subsidary conclusion is the last sentence - even if it is followed with a thus or therefore, know its subsidiary because they like to trick you. In the explanation however, all my planning was backwards! Can someone please explain how to differentiate when one is the main or not??

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, akanshachandra! While it is true that complex arguments in Main Point and Method of Reasoning-Argument Part questions often put a subordinate or intermediate conclusion at the end of the stimulus, they don't always do so. I tell my students to be suspicious of that last sentence, because it is easy to just assume that it must be the main conclusion because it came last, and the test authors like to play on our easy assumptions and set up traps for us that way. Sometimes, though, as in this question, things are exactly what they appear to be, with no tricks or traps awaiting you, and the last sentence is indeed the main conclusion.

So how do you tell which one is which? Try ignoring the rest of the stimulus, and ask yourself which of the two conclusions supports the other. The one that gets the support is the main conclusion, and the one giving support is the subordinate conclusion. In this case, ask yourself which of these looks like a better argument:

1. We are still biologically adapted to wild foods, therefore the more we eat wild foods the better for us

2. The more we eat wild foods, the better for us, therefore we are still biologically adapted to wild foods

You could make a case for either, but the first one seems a lot better, doesn't it? Especially when you consider the additional premise of straying from the diet makes us sicker, which tends to support the claim that sticking with the diet makes us better, That should lead you to conclude that the last sentence is indeed the main conclusion, and the other conclusion is subordinate to it.

You're right to be on your toes for that last sentence, but don't lock yourself into any mechanical "it's always this way" approach. Be wary! The authors are always innovating and looking for new ways to challenge us, and mixing it up like this is one way of doing just that.

Keep up the good work!