@Maddie2027 What I'm learning so far is, as you come out of a new lesson and you're heading into a skill builder after the new lesson, don't immediately assume the first question is based entirely off the new lesson lol
I got 5/5 however, one of my problems that I can fix is that I don't make note of sub conclusions often enough or do I utilize signal words. These can help me in the future when I face a tougher argument that isn't as easy to decipher.
S.C/S.P[Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children,]
because P[those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future. ]
Therefore, M.C[businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting.]
Please help:
why can't "Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children," be the CONCLUSION for the premise that "those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future."
AND
one of the PREMISES for "businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting"
Read it like this:
Because children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future, business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children.
Therefore, businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting.
I think the discussion in the vid around 1:40 (question 3) is a bit confused. We're really dealing with two arguments (not quite syllogisms... actually enthymemes) in that question. Could help to define major premise, minor premise and conclusion more concretely. A conclusion has a subject and a predicate. So for the conclusion that "patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records"... "patients" = subject. Everything that follows in that sentence = predicate.
A major premise includes the conclusion's predicate, not the subject. The minor premise includes the conclusion's subject. So we're actually dealing with two *minor premises* in this question... "giving them [ie patients] access" identifies the third sentence as a minor premise. "no patients" in the last sentence identifies that sentence as another minor premise.
The major premises are not actually present, which is how we know we're dealing with enthymemes and not syllogisms in this question. The two unstated major premises are: "legal rights (predicate) that waste time of the medical staff should not exist" and "legal rights (predicate) that no one will exercise should not exist." These unstated major premises are also assumptions that the speaker makes, so it's useful to be able to identify them for those questions.
Seems like the conclusion is still kinda just the conclusion even in complex arguments. Main utility I can identify in even teaching it is to not get tripped up thinking sub-conclusions are the main conclusion.
What seems to help me as a "newbie" to identifying the structure of the sentence is the "what" and "why". What is the point and why is the point important helps me to identify the premise(s) and conclusion.
@DortheaElridge same. I was like I don’t 100% this is an argument but “xyz” seems like it’s the conclusion. Definitely need to study that style of argument more.
I got everything but the first one wrong. For the first one, I included everything in the sentence that started with Because in the conclusion, when I should have only taken the part after the comma.
Q1 almost made me think it wasn't an argument. Its almost not phrased as one, but digging into it and rereading it twice I saw what it was arguing and how. Rereading takes time, but a lot of the time it is invaluable in catching these kind of details
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
250 comments
4/5 i thought the last one had a sub-conclusion [Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children]
@TOMCRUISE it does, its explained in the video haha
5/5 sometimes I highlighted more than necessary but still solid
4/5 The first tripped me up
@Maddie2027 What I'm learning so far is, as you come out of a new lesson and you're heading into a skill builder after the new lesson, don't immediately assume the first question is based entirely off the new lesson lol
5/5!
5/5 - LETS GOOO!
4/5 The first one caught me off guard!
"do you want your caramel macchiato upside down?"
"no i want my practice problems upside down"
5/5
I got 5/5 however, one of my problems that I can fix is that I don't make note of sub conclusions often enough or do I utilize signal words. These can help me in the future when I face a tougher argument that isn't as easy to decipher.
lets goooo 5/5, so thankful for the video explanations.
LOL, second round. this time again 4/5.
what do you think about this ?
S.C/S.P: SUB CONCLUSION / SUB PREMISE
P: PREMISE
M.C: MAJOR COMCLUSION
S.C/S.P[Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children,]
because P[those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future. ]
Therefore, M.C[businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting.]
Please help:
why can't "Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children," be the CONCLUSION for the premise that "those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future."
AND
one of the PREMISES for "businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting"
Read it like this:
Because children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future, business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children.
Therefore, businesses should adopt policies, such as day care benefits, that facilitate parenting.
5/5!!!
I think the discussion in the vid around 1:40 (question 3) is a bit confused. We're really dealing with two arguments (not quite syllogisms... actually enthymemes) in that question. Could help to define major premise, minor premise and conclusion more concretely. A conclusion has a subject and a predicate. So for the conclusion that "patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records"... "patients" = subject. Everything that follows in that sentence = predicate.
A major premise includes the conclusion's predicate, not the subject. The minor premise includes the conclusion's subject. So we're actually dealing with two *minor premises* in this question... "giving them [ie patients] access" identifies the third sentence as a minor premise. "no patients" in the last sentence identifies that sentence as another minor premise.
The major premises are not actually present, which is how we know we're dealing with enthymemes and not syllogisms in this question. The two unstated major premises are: "legal rights (predicate) that waste time of the medical staff should not exist" and "legal rights (predicate) that no one will exercise should not exist." These unstated major premises are also assumptions that the speaker makes, so it's useful to be able to identify them for those questions.
"because" is a key word! I felt so silly missing question four.
its easier when you ask your self what is the position of the author or what are they attempting to persuade me into to identify the MP
5/5
Seems like the conclusion is still kinda just the conclusion even in complex arguments. Main utility I can identify in even teaching it is to not get tripped up thinking sub-conclusions are the main conclusion.
What seems to help me as a "newbie" to identifying the structure of the sentence is the "what" and "why". What is the point and why is the point important helps me to identify the premise(s) and conclusion.
Did anyone else have difficulty locating the argument in Question 1?
@KhyberBabak i did, i didn’t think it was one
@DortheaElridge same. I was like I don’t 100% this is an argument but “xyz” seems like it’s the conclusion. Definitely need to study that style of argument more.
I got everything but the first one wrong. For the first one, I included everything in the sentence that started with Because in the conclusion, when I should have only taken the part after the comma.
5/5
4/5 correct. I thought we were indicating subconclusions and tried to break Q1 as such
4/5. First question was hard since I was looking for indicators.
So in this part we don't look for indicators? we have to look for the conclusion which is hard to find sometimes.
@AichaCisse indicators have been helpful for me for finding subconclusions and main conclusions
4/5 number one got me real confused at first
5/5
Q1 almost made me think it wasn't an argument. Its almost not phrased as one, but digging into it and rereading it twice I saw what it was arguing and how. Rereading takes time, but a lot of the time it is invaluable in catching these kind of details