#20 - A university should not be entitled to patent the

[biskam]

I often confuse the conclusion with the subconclusion (I thought the last sentence of the stimulus was the conclusion). Is there any way to differentiate between the two for future stimuli? Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Biskam,

Yes, there is! Which one of these two situations sounds more reasonable:

• 1. First sentence as premise, last as conclusion:
  
  
  • Premise: A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members.
    
    Conclusion: Clearly, suppressing information concerning such [potentially valuable] discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free now of ideas.
  
  2. Last sentence as premise, first as conclusion:
  
  
  • Premise: Suppressing information concerning such [potentially valuable] discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free now of ideas.
    
    Conclusion: Thus, A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members.

I'd say the second one above sounds much more logical than the first, and that tells you that the first sentence is the main conclusion. This method helps you distinguish between the main conclusion and a subconclusion (which is typically used as a premise for the main conclusion.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[biskam]

yes thanks!!

[rpark8214]

Hi,

Regarding answer choice (C), I thought assumptions were unstated premises.
1. How are explicit assumptions different from regular premises?
2. Can explicit assumptions rely on implicit assumptions?
3. In question 25 from this section about medical research findings, "Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own." - is the italicized an example of an explicit assumption? If not, an example would be much appreciated!

Thank you so much!

[James Finch]

Hi R. Park,

Going through your questions, an "explicit assumption" for the purposes of this question, would probably mean a premise that the stimulus assumes to be true, but lacks any evidence for. However, the phrase is an oxymoron in the way that "assumption" is normally used on the LSAT, meaning an unstated premise that would strengthen or justify the conclusion. Here it is an incorrect answer choice, so my guess is that it was a trap to confuse test takers into picking an answer choice they didn't fully understand.

Hope this helps!

[PresidentLSAT]

Hello,

I have a question, as the inconsistencies about the rules of this test are beyond frustrating. I read the explanation above. Are assumptions stated or they are not? When do I make an exception? I have gotten questions wrong because I learned I violated a rule because assumptions aren't stated. and is this rule consistent with RC?

Many thanks!!!

[Dave Killoran]

Assumptions as commonly known are not stated, and are unstated. But, in this case LSAC played a word game, and by using the phrase "explicit assumption" created an outcome where they say that the unstated thing is actually stated. In other words, it's a "stated unstated premise," or, just "a premise" since the first two terms cancel each other.

Fwiw, this is the only use I recall of this phrase

[kupwarriors9]

If that's the main conclusion, why doesn't the second sentence (first premise) directly support the main conclusion? It seems as if that sentence ("Universities of intellectual freedom...") supports the "Clearly, suppressing information concerning such [potentially valuable] discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free now of ideas" sentence better. I don't understand why "Clearly.." sentence isn't the main conclusion if it seems better supported by the premises than " university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. "

Or does it just matter whether the sub-conclusion supports the main conclusion?
E.g. "Clearly, suppressing information concerning such [potentially valuable] discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free now of ideas" gives support for "A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. ", but not the other way around.

Is it correct to assume the main conclusion always is the one that gets support by the sub-conclusion only and the sub conclusion is always the one that is giving the support to the main conclusion only?

[Robert Carroll]

If that's the main conclusion, why doesn't the second sentence (first premise) directly support the main conclusion? It seems as if that sentence ("Universities of intellectual freedom...") supports the "Clearly, suppressing information concerning such [potentially valuable] discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free now of ideas" sentence better. I don't understand why "Clearly.." sentence isn't the main conclusion if it seems better supported by the premises than " university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. "

Dave's post earlier in this thread breaks down why it doesn't make sense for the first sentence to support the last sentence, although it DOES make sense for the last sentence to support the first. So the last sentence supports something else. It's impossible for something that supports something else to be the main conclusion.

Further, the entire point of a subconclusion is that it has support for it, and that it supports something else. So pointing out that some statements in the stimulus support the last sentence is just showing that that last sentence is also some kind of conclusion, although, again, it cannot be the main conclusion, based on Dave's post.

If a stimulus has a subconclusion, at least one of the premises will support that subconclusion directly, so those premises' support of the main conclusion will always be indirect. So, again, the situation we're seeing here is how arguments with subconclusions have to work.

Or does it just matter whether the sub-conclusion supports the main conclusion?
E.g. "Clearly, suppressing information concerning such [potentially valuable] discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free now of ideas" gives support for "A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. ", but not the other way around.

Dave's post said exactly this.

Is it correct to assume the main conclusion always is the one that gets support by the sub-conclusion only and the sub conclusion is always the one that is giving the support to the main conclusion only?

No, that's not quite correct. It's probably typical, but a subconclusion can support another subconclusion. It's happened at least once on a real question: viewtopic.php?f=489&t=10715

Further, the main conclusion could get support from a (pure) premise AND a subconclusion, directly. So be careful with absolutes here.

Robert Carroll

[geeeegz]

Hi, I'm still confused on how B is incorrect. I thought that in using "should" the stimulus was trying to get at the fact that the first sentence was a sort of guiding principle, which the conclusion (last sentence) was derived from, ie I thought that the last sentence was using the first sentence as a basis to form a conclusion. I guess my overall question is that I'm sort of struggling to understand how you would be able to tell the difference beyond Dave's explanation, which I may not be fully appreciating. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated!!