#13 - Community organizations wanting to enhance support for

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (A).

When evaluating a Main Point stimulus, look for the one thing that the author said that everything else is intended to support. Ask yourself "what is the author trying to prove." When testing your prephrase, or any answer choice, ask yourself "was this claim used to support some other claim, or did it only receive support?" Main conclusions don't support other claims, but only get support. They are selfish.

What this author wants us to believe, and what they set out to prove, is the first sentence, about what community organizations need to do. The rest of the stimulus is designed to support that claim. Rearranging the stimulus can help clarify this, as follows:

Premise: Convincing the public that they will benefit from a program makes them more receptive to it.

Premise/Example: It's easier to get support for roads, which benefit everyone, than for things that do not.

Conclusion: If you want support for education, you need to convince the public it is beneficial to everyone.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As this answer accurately paraphrases the conclusion in the first sentence, it is the correct answer.

Answer choice (B):This is a premise of the argument, used to support the claim about education programs.

Answer choice (C): This answer misstates the premise about roads. Nobody said it was easy to get support for roads - they just said it was easier ,relative to programs that do not appear to benefit everyone.

Answer choice (D): Beware of this clever shell game! This answer is essentially an implied premise of the argument, using much of the same language as found in the conclusion, but it misses the mark by not expressing the idea that community organizations need to take this approach if they want to achieve their goal. This answer is about what will happen, rather than what needs to happen.

Answer choice (E): The author never suggested that education IS beneficial to everyone, but only that community organizations supporting education need to convince people of this idea. Again, the conclusion is not about what will happen or what is true, but is instead about what those groups need to do if they want to achieve their goal.

[Brandonhsi]

Hello,

I thought the conclusion is "Community organizations need to convince the public that higher education programs will benefit society as a whole." Basically it is the first sentence without the first part. Am I wrong to break the first sentence into two parts? Thanks!

Brandon

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Brandon,

The first part of that sentence specifies WHICH community organizations need to convince the public (specifically, the ones "wanting to enhance support for higher education programs"). I wouldn't leave that part out - it is a critical piece.

[LAM]

Why isn't D correct? I thought the main conclusion was derived from the second sentence, "Taking this approach makes the public more receptive."

Thanks in advance.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Lam,

Good question, and in a sense you are correct, the main conclusion is derived from the second sentence! In other words, the second sentence provides support or a reason to back up the main conclusion. When in doubt about the main conclusion, use a couple tools to ferret out the main point. When you think you might have found a main conclusion, ask:

1. Are there other statements that back up this statement? If so, the statement is a candidate for the main conclusion. If not, it is highly unlikely that the statement is the main conclusion because for a conclusion to make sense there must be premises or facts backing it up.
2. Does this statement back anything else up? Is the author trying to say anything else? If not, then this could be the main conclusion. If the statement does back something else up or if the author appears to be trying to say something else, it is likely that the statement is not a main conclusion. It could be a premise or it could be a "subordinate conclusion," an intermediate stop between other premises and the main conclusion.

Let's use these questions to evaluate the second sentence.

1. Are there other statements that back up this statement? Yes, it appears that the rest of the stimulus provides support for the contention that "this approach makes the public more receptive." Thus, let's leave this in as a possible main conclusion
2. Does this statement back anything else up? Is the author trying to say anything else? Why do we care that this approach makes people more receptive? What good does that do for us? It seems as though the author is trying to say that because this approach makes people more receptive, community organizations should use this approach.

Notice the syntax in that last sentence: "because this approach makes people more receptive, community organizations should use this approach."

That because indicates that the second sentence in fact supports the first. The fact that this approach makes people more receptive is support (a premise) for the contention that community organizations should use this approach (the first statement). Thus, answer choice (D) provides a reasonably good paraphrase of the second statement, but this is a subordinate conclusion in support of the main conclusion that community organizations ought to adopt this approach.

I hope this helps!

[lauriesnyder]

Hi,

In the above answer you mention: Notice the syntax in that last sentence: "because this approach makes people more receptive, community organizations should use this approach."

Where is "because" - am I missing something? I don't see it in the stimulus or any of the answer choices.

So, A is just a restatement of the first sentence. Choosing D is thinking that the second sentence is part of the conclusion - when it's actually an intermediary conclusion/premise (?).

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The "because" is implied in this stimulus, laurie - you didn't miss anything! The sentence structure there implies that the reason it is easier to get public support for roads is because they benefit everyone, as compared to getting support for things that aren't so obviously beneficial to all.

Your analysis of the second sentence looks good! The examples at the end support the claim that convincing the public of a broad societal benefit makes it easier to get public support, which in turn supports the claim that if you want that support for education, you need to do that kind of convincing. Good job!

[Vasilia]

Hi,

It wasn't hard for me to find the conclusion should be the first sentence, but I crossed out A because the wording "must" in the answer choice, is too extreme compared to what's said "need to convince". So I thought it was a trap for people not noticed this difference. Please help me to figure out what to think when doing this type of question and if this is a trap answer type.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Vasilia!

"Must" and "need" are the same degree of strength. Remember that "must" is a necessary indicator term. It modifies a condition that is necessary for a sufficient condition. "Need" also indicates something that is necessary. So "must" is actually a great synonym for "need"!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey