#16 - Editorial: Cell-phone usage on buses and trains is

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus begins with a common sense assertion that cell phone use on buses and trains is often annoying for fellow passengers. It continues to say that cell-phone use on airplanes would be even more annoying for passengers as airplanes are more confined than buses and trains, and further, there is less freedom of movement to change seats if one’s neighbor is particularly irritating. Therefore, the editorialist concludes, the recent proposals to allow cell phone use on airplanes is not a good idea.

When re-worded, the argument is structured as follows:

• Premise: Cell-phone usage on buses and trains is annoying to other passengers.
  Premise: Airline passengers are usually packed in tightly, and often cannot move to another seat.
  Sub. Concl.: Cell-phone use would be far more upsetting on airplanes than on buses and trains.
  Conclusion: Recent proposals to allow use of cell phones on airplanes are ill-advised.

The question stem asks us to describe what role played by the claim that cell phone use on airplanes would be more upsetting than cell phone use on buses or trains. To determine what role a particular statement plays in an argument, consider whether it supports another assertion, whether it is supported by another assertion, or whether it does both. Do not rely on the order of sentences to determine the role a statement plays in the argument, because role is determined by argument structure, not argument placement. In this argument, the identified statement both supports the ultimate conclusion allowing cell phone usage on airplanes is a bad idea, and is itself supported by the observation that airline passengers are packed in tightly, and often cannot move to another seat. Consequently, this claim can be classified as a “subsidiary” (or “intermediate”) conclusion, proving that answer choice (D) is correct.

Answer choice (A): The main conclusion of an argument will not support any other portion of the argument. It will only be supported by statements. Since the statement that cell phone use on airplanes would be more upsetting than usage on buses and trains acts as a support to the statement that the proposal to allow such usage should not be accepted, it cannot be the ultimate conclusion.

Answer choice (B): The argument accepts that cell phone usage on airplanes would be more upsetting than usage on buses and trains. It does not provide information to contradict or weaken that fact.

Answer choice (C): The statement serves as a direct support for the conclusion. The statement, without any other clarification or additional information, supports the idea that the proposal to allow cell phone use on airplanes is ill-advised. Since we can move directly from the identified statement to the argument’s conclusion without needing additional information to connect the two ideas, it is a direct premise, not an indirect premise. Note that both premises in this argument can be described as "indirect" premises for the conclusion, as neither of them supports the conclusion directly. However, since the claim referenced in the question stem does not refer to either of these premises, answer choice (C) is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The identified statement is an intermediate conclusion. It serves as a conclusion for a portion of the argument, and it itself supports the ultimate conclusion. Since the answer choice describes the statement as playing the role of both a premise and a conclusion, it is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E): As explained above, the statement plays a key role in the argument as connecting the initial premise to the ultimate conclusion.

[rneuman123@gmail.com]

can you please give me an example of an indirect premise and of a direct one?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey rneuman123@gmail.com,

Both premises in this argument can be described as "indirect" premises for the conclusion, as neither of them supports the conclusion directly. The subsidiary conclusion is a "direct" premise for the main conclusion, because it directly explains (or supports) that conclusion. By contrast, neither of the two premises directly supports the main conclusion: they only do so by supporting the subsidiary conclusion (which in turn supports the main conclusion).

Hope this clears it up!

[isoifer]

Just to make sure I understand, the difference between a subsidiary conclusion and a premises is that the subsidiary conclusion has an argument that is supported by premises, but is not the ultimate conclusion, whereas the premises are just statements used to support the subsidiary and/or ultimate conclusion? Can a subsidiary conclusion be considered also a premise, or is it restricted to playing just the role of a conclusion?

[Adam Tyson]

A subsidiary or intermediate conclusion is BOTH a premise (because it supports the main conclusion) AND a conclusion (because it gets support from at least one other premise). It's a hybrid, playing both roles in the argument. If you are looking at a claim that gets some support from another claim, you are looking at a conclusion. If you are looking at one that supports another, you are looking at a conclusion. If it does both of those things, then it's a subsidiary or intermediate (two different names for the same thing) conclusion.

Your initial understanding is correct, isoifer!