Recognizing Conclusion without indicators

[lexigibbs]

Hello,

My question regarding this topic is that earlier in chapter 2 of the LR Bible we were told one of the objectives is to identify if the stimulus has an argument or only facts and if there is an argument then find the conclusion. If we are given a stimulus with no conclusion indicators how can we know that it is an argumentative stimulus? Wouldn't this mean for every stimulus that we consider is only facts we have to use the Conclusion identification method to figure out if there is a conclusion which would then mean its an argument which seems that none of the stimulus' would be strictly fact sets.

I feel im a bit confused on how we are to identify a conclusion without an indicator because that seems it would just be a fact set.

Thanks!

Lexi

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Lexi,

Great question. You should always be looking out for those Conclusion Indicators! I underline the conclusion right away when I see it. However, sometimes you won't find a Conclusion Indicator. Another approach is to look for a Premise Indicator like "because, since, due to, etc." For example, you could see sentence that says "Because it is raining, you should take your umbrella." (Conclusion underlined). This has the exact same meaning as "It is raining, so you should take your umbrella." It doesn't matter that the first sentence used a Premise Indicator and the second sentence used a Conclusion Indicator. Both tell me that the last part of the sentence is the conclusion.

If you don't find a conclusion as you're reading the stimulus, another clue is the question stem. Some question types REQUIRE that there be argumentation in the stimulus. For example, if you are being asked to weaken an argument, you must have an argument to weaken! And most often, that means there's a conclusion in the stimulus. (Sometimes the conclusion is in the question stem itself) In a Must Be True question type, you might not see argumentation in the stimulus.

So if you encounter a question type that requires argumentation in the stimulus, then you can go back and try to identify the conclusion. You can use the Conclusion or Premise Indicators if they're present (and the lists we give are not exhaustive), but you can also ask yourself: "What is the author driving at? What does the author want me to believe?" That will often yield the conclusion. To identify the premises, you can ask yourself "What reasons has the author used to persuade me? Why should I believe this argument?"

For example, I could say: "Peanut and Butter Jelly Sandwiches are the best. They're so ooey-gooey and the perfect combination of sweet and savory." What do I want you to believe? That PB&Js are the best. What reasons have I given to persuade you? That they're ooey-gooey and the perfect combination of sweet and savory. Try flipping it around and see if it makes sense.
I want you to believe that PB&Js are ooey-gooey and the perfect combination of sweet and savory, and my evidence is that they're the best? No, that doesn't make sense!

Hope this helps.

[lexigibbs]

This helped a lot!

So if we read a stimulus and do not automatically identify a conclusion, we shouldn't just assume its a fact set.
This may be a stupid question/clarify but how can we identify a fact set from a stimulus without a conclusion indicator?

And if a stimulus does not have an automatic conclusion and it ends up being an argument to we take the sentences we think could be the conclusion are arrange them as premise/conclusion until it sounds right ?

Thank you!

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Lexi,

Not a stupid question at all! Many students struggle with this concept, which is why we present it first! Your primary goal should be different between premises and the conclusion in an argument. You are distinguishing between the premises and conclusion in ONE question. Less important, although helpful, is your ability to distinguish between arguments and fact sets across different questions. If you don't see a conclusion right away, look at the question stem. If it's a Must Be True, Resolve the Paradox, or Cannot Be True (somewhat rare question type), you're probably right and it's a set of facts.

However, if it's another question type like Strengthen, Weaken, Assumption, Justify, Parallel Reasoning, and others - you should go back and identify the conclusion using the methods described above. If you still can't find the conclusion, it's time to move on to the answer choices, but it may be more difficult to answer correctly.

The reason you need to differentiate between premises and the conclusion is that you accept the premises as true but the conclusion is suspect. You say to yourself, "Okay, I believe your premises. But do I believe your conclusion?" The reason is that you are being tested on your ability to understand argumentation and logic. It would be too easy if you could say "Well, I have some outside information that tells me your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong!" What you want is to ask yourself if the conclusion really follows from the premises.