Exactly! If the claim you have labeled as 'main conclusion' turns out to give support to another claim, then that's exactly how you know that you have incorrectly identified the main conclusion.
A complex argument includes single claims that both give and receive support.
It's an argument that runs on.
Now you don't just have a premise(s) and 1 conclusion but an additional conclusion birthed from the first.
EX:
in a complex argument you have
premise(s) a - conclusion a
premise ab and conclusion b
premise ab - is a sub-conclusion (or intermediate conclusion or major premise) a claim that receives and gives support to another claim. this is both conclusion and premise.
Congratulations, your argument just had a baby!! Its name is Sub-conclusion.
Today's "verse of the day" from the bible app seems fitting! 2 Chronicles 15:7: "But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded."
I think I get it! The example of a mother being both a mother and a daughter depends on who she is in relation to, same with the premise and conclusion!
A good way to think about the relationship between claims is to compare it to squares/rectangles; not all rectangles are square but all squares are rectangles. Shifting this to premises and conclusions, not all major premises are minor conclusions, but all minor conclusions are major premises. This relationship is the key area that we see complex arguments form.
So what I'm getting is that the sub-conclusion or intermediate conclusion is basically just a conclusion sentence that provides support for the main conclusion. Such as in Premise 3, it receives support from P1 and P2, P4 however, does get support from P1 and 2 but is not attempting to conclude anything since the main subject is Fluffers. That's why P4 is not considered a sub-conclusion since P5 (the main conclusion) is that Fluffers is cute. P4 needs the support from P3 in order to reach the logical conclusion that; Since all dogs are adorable, and fluffers is a dog. It makes sense that Fluffers is adorable (sub-conclusion). Then, since all adorable things are cute, Fluffers also must be cute (main conclusion). Maybe this was a really roundabout way of explaining it, but thats how I understood it.
I think I got it, and I learned that you can sometime split a sentence to parse out more premises or conclusions. Here's my example:
Research shows that employees who receive regular feedback are more likely to improve their performance. Improved employee performance generally leads to higher overall team productivity. Since Meridian Solutions recently implemented a system of regular performance feedback, the company’s teams are likely to become more productive. Because higher team productivity allows firms to compete more effectively in crowded markets, Meridian Solutions is better positioned than its competitors.
Premises:
- Research shows that employees who receive regular feedback are more likely to improve their performance.
- Improved employee performance generally leads to higher overall team productivity.
- Meridian Solutions recently implemented a system of regular performance feedback
- higher team productivity allows firms to compete more effectively in crowded markets
Sub Conclusion: - the company’s teams are likely to become more productive
Main Conclusion: - Meridian Solutions is better positioned than its competitors.
All donuts are delicious. Chocochunk is a type of donut. Therefore , chocochunk is delicious. Delicious things make me happy. Chocochunk makes me happy.
So if I understand correctly, the sub-conclusion is a also called a major premise? And a minor premise is one that provides support to the sub-conclusion/major premise? Is that correct? And the sub-conclusion/major premise gives support to the main conclusion?
138 comments
Diff. version
All NBA players are athletic.
Lebron James is an NBA player.
Therefore, Lebron James is athletic.
Everyone that is athletic is a desirable mate.
Lebron James is a desirable mate.
Theres levels to this, whoa
So can it be concluded that a main conclusion will never give support to anything else in the argument? It will only receive support
Exactly! If the claim you have labeled as 'main conclusion' turns out to give support to another claim, then that's exactly how you know that you have incorrectly identified the main conclusion.
Every human is cooked for the LSAT.
I am a human.
I am cooked for the LSAT. (Sub-conclusion)
Everyone who is cooked for the LSAT is sad.
I am sad.
@mutayeb no way 😭💀 (same)
All flowers are beautiful.
Rose is a flower.
Hence, Rose is beautiful.
All beautiful things smell great.
Rose smells great.
A complex argument includes single claims that both give and receive support.
It's an argument that runs on.
Now you don't just have a premise(s) and 1 conclusion but an additional conclusion birthed from the first.
EX:
in a complex argument you have
premise(s) a - conclusion a
premise ab and conclusion b
premise ab - is a sub-conclusion (or intermediate conclusion or major premise) a claim that receives and gives support to another claim. this is both conclusion and premise.
Congratulations, your argument just had a baby!! Its name is Sub-conclusion.
1. All frogs are green
2. Katie is a frog
3. Katie is green
4. All green things are organic
5. Katie is organic
All men are cheaters.
Jack is a man.
Therefore, all Jack is a cheater.
All cheaters are liars.
Jack is a liar.
Sorry men, I don't mean to attack you lol. Just trying to come up with a good example.
😔
Today's "verse of the day" from the bible app seems fitting! 2 Chronicles 15:7: "But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded."
I needed this, Happy Saturday!
All cats like attention.
Mister Ooshie is a cat.
Therefore, Mister Ooshie likes attention.
Cats meow to get attention.
Therefore, Mister Ooshie meows.
yes... Mister Ooshie is in fact my cat
I am willing to bet that Fluffers is indeed cute!
Here we go, my brain is starting to get confused hahaha
Would it be fair to say that sub premises support a sub conclusion and major premises support the main conclusion?
I think I get it! The example of a mother being both a mother and a daughter depends on who she is in relation to, same with the premise and conclusion!
nooooo stop adding concepts, lsat is getting more and more confusing by the day
A good way to think about the relationship between claims is to compare it to squares/rectangles; not all rectangles are square but all squares are rectangles. Shifting this to premises and conclusions, not all major premises are minor conclusions, but all minor conclusions are major premises. This relationship is the key area that we see complex arguments form.
All politicians are crooks.
Donald is a politician.
Therefore, Donald is a crook.
All crooks are unfit to serve the public.
Donald is unfit to serve the public.
@StudiousStudier Hah. Wonder who Donald might be!
All COD games have micro-transactions
Black OPS 7 is a COD game
Therefore, Black OPS 7 has micro-transactions
Micro-transactions kill your wallet
So Black OPS 7 will kill your wallet
Instagram is the number one social media app.
All social media apps rot your brain.
Therefore, Instagram rots your brain.
All apps that rot your brain are not worth downloading.
Instagram is not worth downloading.
So what I'm getting is that the sub-conclusion or intermediate conclusion is basically just a conclusion sentence that provides support for the main conclusion. Such as in Premise 3, it receives support from P1 and P2, P4 however, does get support from P1 and 2 but is not attempting to conclude anything since the main subject is Fluffers. That's why P4 is not considered a sub-conclusion since P5 (the main conclusion) is that Fluffers is cute. P4 needs the support from P3 in order to reach the logical conclusion that; Since all dogs are adorable, and fluffers is a dog. It makes sense that Fluffers is adorable (sub-conclusion). Then, since all adorable things are cute, Fluffers also must be cute (main conclusion). Maybe this was a really roundabout way of explaining it, but thats how I understood it.
I think I got it, and I learned that you can sometime split a sentence to parse out more premises or conclusions. Here's my example:
Research shows that employees who receive regular feedback are more likely to improve their performance. Improved employee performance generally leads to higher overall team productivity. Since Meridian Solutions recently implemented a system of regular performance feedback, the company’s teams are likely to become more productive. Because higher team productivity allows firms to compete more effectively in crowded markets, Meridian Solutions is better positioned than its competitors.
Premises:
- Research shows that employees who receive regular feedback are more likely to improve their performance.
- Improved employee performance generally leads to higher overall team productivity.
- Meridian Solutions recently implemented a system of regular performance feedback
- higher team productivity allows firms to compete more effectively in crowded markets
Sub Conclusion: - the company’s teams are likely to become more productive
Main Conclusion: - Meridian Solutions is better positioned than its competitors.
All donuts are delicious. Chocochunk is a type of donut. Therefore , chocochunk is delicious. Delicious things make me happy. Chocochunk makes me happy.
So if I understand correctly, the sub-conclusion is a also called a major premise? And a minor premise is one that provides support to the sub-conclusion/major premise? Is that correct? And the sub-conclusion/major premise gives support to the main conclusion?
You are understanding it all correctly. Good work!
Drinks with a lot of sugar makes you sick
coke has a lot of sugar
Therefore, coke will make you sick
Drinking a lot of sugar drinks will kill you
therefore, drinking a lot of coke will kill you
All hard workers are successful
Max is a hard worker
Max is successful
All people that are successful are also smart
Max is smart