#6- As symbols of the freedom of the wilderness, bald eagles

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[ymf10]

I am confused by the word "clearly" in the stimulus. Isn't it a conclusion indicator and therefore the conclusion would be without the eagles sympathy the needs of obscure species would go unmet?
I got the answer right, mostly by eliminating the wrong answers but am confused about the use of the word. Thanks

[James Finch]

Hi YMF,

You're correct that "clearly" or "clearly then" are conclusory indicators. However, in a Main Point Logical Reasoning stimulus, you have to be careful not to trip up on the indicator words, which are often attached to an intermediate conclusion, and instead focus on the logical flow as a whole. So to break this stimulus down, we have:

Sentence 1: Premise telling us that bald eagles inspire sympathy for other species.

Sentence 2: Conditional statement that diagrams out to:

Bald Eagle Sympathy Political Will Needs of Obscure Species

The tricky part here is the word "clearly;" my guess is that this sentence is meant to be an intermediate conclusion, although there is a clear logical gap between this sentence and the preceding one, so it isn't a valid inference. The big takeaway should be that it is then used as a premise for the final sentence, which is merely a statement of the contrapositive of this logical chain.

Sentence 3: A conclusory statement that is merely a restatement of the contrapositive of the second sentence's A C conditional chain.

Needs of Obscure Species Bald Eagle Sympathy

This is a valid inference, and does logically flow from the second sentence, making it the main conclusion of the stimulus. Answer choice (B) paraphrases it, making it the correct answer.

Hope this clears things up!

[wisnain]

Hi, I was somewhat confused while diagramming the last sentence. I thought there were two possibilities:

#1. With the necessary indicator "only":
needs of obscure species -> bald eagle sympathy
#2. With the sufficient indicator "by":
conservation of bald eagle -> meet the needs of obscure species

What am I supposed to do when faced with several indicators in a single sentence? Should I refer to the previous sentence? Because it diagrams as follows (with the necessary indicator "without"), which complies with #1:
needs of obscure species -> bald eagle sympathy + political will

[Dana D]

Hey Wisnain,

Remember that sufficient conditions tell us additional information, because they always include the necessary condition.

So, in this case, if the conservation needs of many obscure species is met (which is the sufficient condition), then I also know we began with the conservation of the bald eagle. This wouldn't work the other way around - just because I start with conserving the bald eagle, I don't know for sure that the needs of many other obscure species will be met. I would rely less on indicator words and instead try and think about which ideas are actually contingent on each other - the sufficient condition will always require the necessary, while the necessary can occur alone. In this example, we can conserve the bald eagle on it's own, we don't have to care about saving other obscure species. However, if we want to conserve obscure species, we must conserve the bald eagle.

Hope that helps!