#16 - Psychologist: The obligation to express gratitude

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method—Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (E)

The psychologist’s argument is structured as follows:

     Premise: However much society may have changed over
     the centuries, human psychology is still driven
     primarily by personal interaction.
     Subconclusion/ Thus, the important social function of positively

     Premise: reinforcing those behaviors [of expressing gratitude]
     that have beneficial consequences for others can be
     served only if the benefactor knows the source of
     the gratitude.

     Main conclusion: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be
     fulfilled anonymously.

The statement referenced in the question stem is the main conclusion of
the argument, and as the answer choice correctly describes, the conclusion
that the argument is designed to support.

The argument, when considered in terms of order, is “out of order”:

     First sentence = main conclusion
     Second sentence = basic premise
     Third sentence = subconclusion

The last sentence is a subconclusion, and in a Method—AP answer choice
the author can describe a subconclusion in a variety of ways:

     subsidiary conclusion
     secondary conclusion
     intermediate conclusion
     supporting conclusion

Note that as predicted, the main conclusion is not modified by a
conclusion indicator but the subconclusion is.

Answer choice (A): The statement in question is not an example of an idea
raised in a premise.

Answer choice (B): The answer choice describes a premise that is used to
defend the argument from attack. This would better describe the second
sentence of the argument.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes a premise supporting a
subconclusion. Again, this would better describe the second sentence of
the argument.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice better describes the last sentence.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer.

By consistently breaking down the structure of the argument before
reading the answer choices, these problems become very easy to solve.

[lathlee]

Hi. I just cannot see how " the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously" is the main conclusion of this stimulus. I keep seeing this as answer choice c) its is used to support indirectly a claim that the argument, in turn, uses to support directly the conclusion.

what i am not seeing here and what i am doing wrong here

[Claire Horan]

Hi Lathlee,

From your question, it sounds like you are arguing that the first sentence ("The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.") is a premise that supports the second sentence ("However much society may have changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction."). You are right that the second sentence supports the third sentence, but I think you are assuming the third sentence is the main conclusion because it uses the conclusion indicator "thus." Be careful, though, conclusion indicators can be used in subsidiary conclusions, which is the case here.

Your diagram would be:
Premise 1: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.
Subsidiary Conclusion: However much society may have changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction.
Main Conclusion: Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

But that can't be right. How could the first sentence support the second sentence? That would look like this

However much society may have changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction because the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.

That argument would make no sense.

Instead, the psychologist concludes that the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously because the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude. We should believe that because however much society may have changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction.

[jennie]

I also thought the first sentence was a premise. Why can't this statement be diagramed like this:

Premise 1: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.
Premise 2: However much society may have changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven primarily by personal interaction.
Conclusion: Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi jennie,
Great question! Let's take your second premise out so that we can read the other two statements in question back to back to see which one makes more sense.

Premise: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.

Conclusion: Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.
or
Premise: The important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.

Conclusion: Thus, the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.

We want the premise(s) to lend support to the conclusion, and we want the conclusion to sum up/tie together the premise(s). In the 2 examples above the second one fulfills these requirements.

Hope that helps,
-Malila

[esther913]

Hi,
I thought the first sentence ("The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.") was a broad statement rather than a conclusion.
The last sentence ("Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude.") is more specific and seems to "sum up" the premises. Why is it not the main conclusion of the argument?

[Brook Miscoski]

Esther,

Please review Malila's response.

To determine whether a sentence is a conclusion or a premise, you must consider whether the sentence offers support or instead receives support.

The first sentence is indeed a broad claim. It is subsequently explained by the second and third sentences.

Therefore, the first sentence is the conclusion.

Try this. Read the stimulus starting with the second sentence, and put the first sentence at the very end.

All the ideas flow towards supporting that sentence, so it's the conclusion.

[esther913]

That makes sense!
I was able to find the conclusion by reading the stimulus from the second sentence and placing the first sentence at the very end.
Thank you so much for the advice.

[JotaDay]

Is the first sentence necessarily the conclusion because it is broader and is an "application" of sorts of the premises? I was tricked initially into thinking the last sentence was the conclusion because it seemed to me that the first two sentences lent it support. To be clear here - I consistently get confused because I see sentences 1 and 3 and my view is that they each lend support to each other and vice a versa?

Thanks for the help!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Jotaday!

One way to think about it is that all of the other premises lend support to the conclusion. Let's break down our stimulus:

Premise 1: Although society has changed over the centuries, human psychology is still driven by personal interactions
Premise 2: Because of this, the social function of positively reinforcing behaviors can only be served if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.
Conclusion: Therefore, the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.

Our first premise sets up the idea that human psychology is driven by personal interactions. Our second premise follows up by stating that because of this, positive reinforcement of behaviors that benefit others only works when the individual expressing gratitude is known. This is because personal interactions drive human psychology, so an interaction between the benefactor and the beneficiary would have to take place for any effect to be had on either party.

From these premises, we can draw our conclusion that the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously, because the positive behavioral reinforcement that would otherwise encourage/influence the benefactor to continue helping others would not take place. We can think of our second premise as a sub-conclusion drawn from our first premise that allows us to draw the overall conclusion of the stimulus.

I hope this helps!