#21- Scientist: Isaac Newton's Principia, the seventeenth

[Pragmatism]

I chose the right answer for this, which is D, but I do need a bit of clarity. In a Method-AP questions, we either know the following: 1. If its a premise, it could also be a sub-conclusion. 2. If it is a conclusion, it could either be a sub-conclusion or the main conclusion. 3. It could be something else as in an example, an analogy, or simply background information. Those parts are understandable. My concern is regarding the relation to the conclusion and sub-conclusion. Structurally, can you provide me with a generalized example of a stimulus that conforms to the following: first sentence premise, second sentence main conclusion, and third sentence sub-conclusion?

The reason why I ask that is because, in this stimulus, I saw the phrase, "This shows that...not impermeable," as its main-conclusion, but then was thrown off by, "Thus recent scientific," and made a judgement call to focalize that as my main conclusion. The problem with the last sentence was two-fold: first, I took the beginning of the phrase "thus recent" to possibly mean "because of, the conclusion reached earlier, scientific research may also...intellectual heritage." Second, the assertion "most of which also can...contemporary readers," threw me off as being a third-wheel --- an inconvenience-- to the main conclusion, and with the fact it introduced "only in language," which went against what I believed was the main conclusion. Thus, switching the last sentence to be the main conclusion. Moving forward, what could one do to make such process much more efficient?

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

The key to differentiating between a subordinate conclusion (also sometimes referred to as an intermediate conclusion) and the main conclusion is to pull them both out of the argument and see if they make an argument by themselves. Which one supports the other? The sub conclusion should offer at least some support to the main conclusion, but the main conclusion, selfish as it is, should not support the sub conclusion, or anything else.

I like to use a baseball analogy here: A ground ball is hit to the shortstop, who scoops up the ball and tosses it to the second baseman, who tags the base, making the runner from first out. He then turns and quickly throws to first base, getting the batter out at first. The outs are both conclusions, and the throws are both premises that support those outs. In my analogy, the out at second is a subordinate conclusion, because it got support from the shortstop but then in turn supports the out at first. That one is the main conclusion because it supports nothing - the play has ended.

In this case, the claim that "barriers...are not impermeable" supports the claim that, therefore, "recent research...may also become part of everyone's intellectual heritage." See how it doesn't work in the opposite direction? A claim that something may happen doesn't support that something is true, but a claim that something is true can be used to support that something may be true.

If you ever find yourself unsure whether a claim is the main conclusion or not, ask yourself whether you could use that claim to support some other claim in the stimulus. If you can, it's not!

[Pragmatism]

Kudos sir for explaining a baseball analogy to a baseball ignorant person. That really helped out. Thanks

[Jonathan Evans]

It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between subordinate and main conclusions. If I have to decide between two statements to determine which one is the main, final conclusion, I have an approach similar to that of Adam.

Identify and isolate the two statements:

1. The barriers between scientists and everyone else aren't absolute.
2. Recent science that's currently difficult/complex might also eventually be accessible to normal people.

Then I ask myself two questions about each statement:

1. What backs this statement up?
2. So what? Does anything follow from this statement?

Let's see how this works:

1. The barriers between scientists and everyone else aren't absolute.
   What backs this statement up? All that info about Newton and his Principia.
   So what? Does anything follow from this statement? Yeah seems like this leads into the stuff about contemporary science.
2. Recent science that's currently difficult/complex might also eventually be accessible to normal people.
   What backs this statement up? That info about how Newton's stuff became accessible to normal people.
   So what? Does anything follow from this statement? No, seems like we're done here.

Notice that the fact that there is evidence/premises backing up each statement tells us that each is a conclusion. However, notice that the author doesn't appear to be done with statement (1). She's got more to say; she uses this statement to back something else up. The fact that this statement leads somewhere else means it's not the main conclusion.

In contrast, statement (2) is it. We're done. The author's train of thought stops. Statement (2) does not support anything else. Therefore, it's the main conclusion.

Note this is all very much in sync with Adam's explanation above, just a slightly different spin on it. I hope this helps!

[Pragmatism]

Johnathan, I really appreciate your thoughts as well. These thoughts are bound to stay with me till my olden days, and when time comes, I shall teach your wise words to them as well.

Back to brass tacks, I truly appreciate everything you have said. I still have one structural question on the relation between sub-conclusion and main conclusion; I have seen several stimulus that conform to the following scenarios:

Examples of scenarios I have seen:

— 1. Sentence 1: Premise; Sentence 2: Premise; Sentence 3: Conclusion
— 2. Sentence 1: Main conclusion; Sentence 2: Premise; Sentence 3: Sub-conclusion
— 3. Which roughly conforms to this stimulus S1: Premise; S2: Sub-conclusion; S3: Main conclusion

However, I have never seen a stimulus I am about to diagram below, could you please let me know if such a stimulus could exist. Also, if there are actual examples of such a stimulus, if not, then can you illustrate an example that conforms to that diagram.

— S1: Premise; S2: Main Conclusion; S3: Sub-conclusion.

Only reason I ask that is because I have seen either a main conclusion separated by a sentence or two from the sub-conclusion, or a sub-conclusion that proceeds a main conclusion.

I really appreciate it.

Thanks

[Claire Horan]

Hi Pragmatism,

Let's start with a very important distinction: Order vs. Structure. Order is simply the order in which sentences are written. You have described a possible order where there is first a premise, then the main conclusion sentence, and then a sub-conclusion which is supported by the first sentence and supports the second sentence.

You diagrammed it like this:

— S1: Premise; S2: Main Conclusion; S3: Sub-conclusion.

Structure involves the parts of the argument and their relationship, regardless of the order. So a diagram of the structure shown above would look the same regardless of the order in which the sentences are presented. Lesson 1 of the coursebook shows arguments as houses. This one, for example, would have a roof, resting on a subconclusion, resting on a premise, so maybe a two-story house, if you will.

A good rule of LSAT is to pay attention to Structure and NOT assume the structure from the Order. Finally, to answer your question directly: arguments on the LSAT can be presented in any order. To determine what role a statement plays in an argument, figure out if anything supports it and if it supports anything. Avoid assumptions and shortcuts!

[Pragmatism]

Thank you very much Claire.

[Desperatenconfused]

hello,
I answered this question correctly, but I had eliminated answers to B and D. B seemed to be a little too specific, so I went with D.
But could anyone explain why B is actually incorrect? Am I correct that it was just too specific of an answer?

[srusty]

hello,
I answered this question correctly, but I had eliminated answers to B and D. B seemed to be a little too specific, so I went with D.
But could anyone explain why B is actually incorrect? Am I correct that it was just too specific of an answer?

Hi D,

Answer choice (B) mischaracterizes the role of the statement. The claim about the esoteric language is not a premise, but rather a part of the conclusion and the author's larger point. Hope this helps!