#9 - Ph.D. programs are valuable only if they inculcate good

[AJH]

I'm working from the QTT book on this, but it says it's #9, sec. 1 Feb '95.

I thought the conclusion is "either way the dissertation is counterproductive and frustrates the appropriate goals of the doctoral program" and "Hence, doctoral dissertations should not be required in the humanities" is a subsidiary conclusion. Because of this, I thought that answer choice D was correct; it links via assumption that humanities are different and therefore should have different treatment when it comes to dissertations. Answer choice C to me reads that the phrase mentioned is the conclusion. I would really appreciate an explanation here! Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The phrase in question is indeed the argument's main conclusion, AJH, and here's how you can test it: strip away everything else, and just put together the two claims that you are evaluating. Which of these makes more sense in the context of this argument?:

a. Doctoral dissertations should not be required in the humanities, therefore the dissertation is counterproductive and frustrates the appropriate goals of the doctoral program.

or

b. The dissertation is counterproductive and frustrates the appropriate goals of the doctoral program, therefore doctoral dissertations should not be required in the humanities.

In my opinion, choice b makes more sense, both logically in context and intuitively without context. An intermediate or subsidiary conclusion has to get some support (from other premises), and then act as a premise in support of the main conclusion. The main conclusion is selfish, in that it takes support from the premises but gives no support to anything else. It doesn't matter in what order the claims were presented, and the authors love to give us intermediate conclusions at the end of the stimulus with the main conclusion buried somewhere in the middle, as here.

When in doubt, just pull the claims out that you are evaluating and try to grasp their relationship without all the other clutter of the argument. Main conclusions become a lot clearer that way.

Keep at it!