@Nishitha A question can have two conclusive statements but only one will function as the "main conclusion of the argument. The other conclusion is a "sub-conclusion" and acts as a premise in support of the "main conclusion." In question 5 the statement "this is not a sustainable, long term solution" acts as a sub-conclusion (premise) to the main conclusion "they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately."
I understand why the last sentence is the conclusion in q5, what I'm a bit tripped up on is why the first sentence is context rather than another premise? It seems that it supports the conclusion because of the "storing food waste in their back yards" --> "shut down operations". The conclusion exists because it assumes the first sentence is wrong. Why is it context and not a premise? How can I tell the difference?
@ZayaanDamji Hi! the reason it's not in the same position as q4 anymore is because it has turned into a sub-conclusion/another premise. you can use the thus/therefore trick. "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution. Thus, they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately". It not being a sustainable long-term solution becomes support for why operations should be shut down immediately.
In question 5, can "but this is not a sustainable long-term solution" be considered a subsidiary conclusion? I know it isn't the main conclusion, but doesn't it both receive support from the first sentence and give support to the main conclusion/last sentence?
I do agree. I initially thought it could be a micro-conclusion as well, but upon closer analysis it does seem that we are supposed to take "this is not a sustainable long-term solution" as true.
@CarolineHaskins yes, I also thought it to be a sub conclusion since it receives support, but ultimately the last premise got my attention because it received stronger support and then I remembered in a previous lesson we were taught how since (for/since/because) is usually followed by a premise but can contain a conclusion.
Idk if im the only one but im just really confused on how Question 2 is even an argument. If anything I feel like that the last sentence "since macroeconomic forces are nothing more than the aggregation of individual microeconomic choices" is more of a conclusion, but that doesnt really leave a premise
Just confused on what exactly the argument that number 2 is trying to make is
@pbahoura I initially thought that too, but after reading the passage again, and watching the video, I can understand the different parts.
The first sentence introduces what economists are asking - which is why certain countries have higher income variance than others. This is the context as to what we will be reading about.
The second sentence then says that some of these economists believe that the answers can be found by examining macroeconomic factors. This is also context - aka other people's positioning.
Next sentence, the author is countering these economists' answers by saying well we need to do x (examine the individual decisions). The word "however" helps recognize that we are moving AWAY from context and into a personal opinion - which we can say is the conclusion.
And why do we need to do x?
Because the "macroeconomic forces" that these said economists are talking about are "nothing more than the aggregation of individual microeconomic choices." The word "since" helps us understand WHY we need to do x - aka the premise.
question 5 I struggled on - i know sometimes "but" can be the indicator word for a mc statement as well but in this case it was the last sentence where the author's opinion was given "they should"
@Elo ok I thought this too but looking back at it temporary storage in the backyard not being a sustainable solution supports the idea that they should shut it down because they don't have a suitable alternative
5/5!!! the first four were pretty smooth and i spent a few minutes on the Q5; i was able to easily note that the sentence 1 was the context and that sentence 3 was a premise. i was torn between sentences 2 and 4 for the main conclusion.
i recognized that this was a premise+conclusion type of sentence, which are my weak points. however, the phrase "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" pertains to ONLY the first sentence talking about the food waste storage methods. sentence 4 offers a solution (in the form of a conclusion) to the overall problem, which is that they should just overall stop producing the food waste to begin with.
this sentence addresses all of the previous sentences and takes support from them, which is why sentence 4 ("they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately" is the main conclusion!
It's difficult putting all we learned so far into practice lol. I got 1 and 2 wrong so far, by simply forgetting "for, since, and because", on top of finding the context... I got this though!
X[The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards.]
S.C[But this is not a sustainable, long term solution.]
P[Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,]
M.C[they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.]
This is how I initially categorized it, and I think I am having difficulty finding the difference between sub-conclusion and sub-premise. To me, what I found as S.C was still a conclusion partly then be tied down by the M.C (that the operations should be immediately shut down).
402 comments
4/5
i got the first 2 wrong and was able to get the last 3 right by stopping and thinking "what is the argument?" and "what supports the argument"
can a question have 2 conclusions?
@Nishitha A question can have two conclusive statements but only one will function as the "main conclusion of the argument. The other conclusion is a "sub-conclusion" and acts as a premise in support of the "main conclusion." In question 5 the statement "this is not a sustainable, long term solution" acts as a sub-conclusion (premise) to the main conclusion "they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately."
5/5!
5/5
5/5!
I understand why the last sentence is the conclusion in q5, what I'm a bit tripped up on is why the first sentence is context rather than another premise? It seems that it supports the conclusion because of the "storing food waste in their back yards" --> "shut down operations". The conclusion exists because it assumes the first sentence is wrong. Why is it context and not a premise? How can I tell the difference?
4/5, thought the conclusion was in the same spot as q4
@ZayaanDamji Hi! the reason it's not in the same position as q4 anymore is because it has turned into a sub-conclusion/another premise. you can use the thus/therefore trick. "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution. Thus, they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately". It not being a sustainable long-term solution becomes support for why operations should be shut down immediately.
@AlenaKane Thank you
@ZayaanDamji ofc good luck!
4/5....I rushed through q5 and didn't read it properly
4/5 q5 got me
for q5 would "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution," be a sub conclusion?
Q5 almost got me. The phrasing being so similar to Q4 is sneaky
In question 5, can "but this is not a sustainable long-term solution" be considered a subsidiary conclusion? I know it isn't the main conclusion, but doesn't it both receive support from the first sentence and give support to the main conclusion/last sentence?
@CarolineHaskins I don't think it doesn't receives support from the first sentence. The first sentence is just context.
I do agree. I initially thought it could be a micro-conclusion as well, but upon closer analysis it does seem that we are supposed to take "this is not a sustainable long-term solution" as true.
@CarolineHaskins yes, I also thought it to be a sub conclusion since it receives support, but ultimately the last premise got my attention because it received stronger support and then I remembered in a previous lesson we were taught how since (for/since/because) is usually followed by a premise but can contain a conclusion.
5/5. Q2 and Q5 kinda got me, so i took a few minutes
Idk if im the only one but im just really confused on how Question 2 is even an argument. If anything I feel like that the last sentence "since macroeconomic forces are nothing more than the aggregation of individual microeconomic choices" is more of a conclusion, but that doesnt really leave a premise
Just confused on what exactly the argument that number 2 is trying to make is
@pbahoura I had the same though that a lack of argument was presented
@pbahoura I initially thought that too, but after reading the passage again, and watching the video, I can understand the different parts.
The first sentence introduces what economists are asking - which is why certain countries have higher income variance than others. This is the context as to what we will be reading about.
The second sentence then says that some of these economists believe that the answers can be found by examining macroeconomic factors. This is also context - aka other people's positioning.
Next sentence, the author is countering these economists' answers by saying well we need to do x (examine the individual decisions). The word "however" helps recognize that we are moving AWAY from context and into a personal opinion - which we can say is the conclusion.
And why do we need to do x?
Because the "macroeconomic forces" that these said economists are talking about are "nothing more than the aggregation of individual microeconomic choices." The word "since" helps us understand WHY we need to do x - aka the premise.
I hope this somewhat helped :')
my first 5/5 sniffles happily
question 5 I struggled on - i know sometimes "but" can be the indicator word for a mc statement as well but in this case it was the last sentence where the author's opinion was given "they should"
For #5 the first premise doesn’t seem like it supports the conclusion. 👎
@Elo ok I thought this too but looking back at it temporary storage in the backyard not being a sustainable solution supports the idea that they should shut it down because they don't have a suitable alternative
4/5, The last question I knew was gonna throw me for a loop seeing the same prompt with that minor change.
5/5 yay
5/5 😃
q5 stumped me. commenting to revisit when my mastery of the english language has improved....drastically
4/5
5/5!!! the first four were pretty smooth and i spent a few minutes on the Q5; i was able to easily note that the sentence 1 was the context and that sentence 3 was a premise. i was torn between sentences 2 and 4 for the main conclusion.
i recognized that this was a premise+conclusion type of sentence, which are my weak points. however, the phrase "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" pertains to ONLY the first sentence talking about the food waste storage methods. sentence 4 offers a solution (in the form of a conclusion) to the overall problem, which is that they should just overall stop producing the food waste to begin with.
this sentence addresses all of the previous sentences and takes support from them, which is why sentence 4 ("they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately" is the main conclusion!
It's difficult putting all we learned so far into practice lol. I got 1 and 2 wrong so far, by simply forgetting "for, since, and because", on top of finding the context... I got this though!
X: CONTEXT
S.C: SUB CONCLUSION
P: PREMISE
M.C: MAJOR CONCLUSION
X[The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards.]
S.C[But this is not a sustainable, long term solution.]
P[Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,]
M.C[they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.]
This is how I initially categorized it, and I think I am having difficulty finding the difference between sub-conclusion and sub-premise. To me, what I found as S.C was still a conclusion partly then be tied down by the M.C (that the operations should be immediately shut down).
4/5