Although radioactive waste from nuclear power plants across the country is being temporarily stored on site (Can you argue this statement? No. Is this statement supporting? Doesn't seem like it, simply put, this just giving us a fact about the world, it is context) , this is not a satisfactory long-term solution (this is the conclusion, this is clearly the author's opinion, why should I believe this? Naturally, the answer to that question will follow) Since no suitable plan of safe permanent storage of such waste from the nation's existing and planned nuclear plants has been devised (this sentence supports the statement that it is not a long term satisfactory solution, but we have a sentence that follows, let's see if we have a intermediate conclusion), we should stop trying to develop such a plan (why? Because it is not a long term solution) and instead (Now, we see that this is the overall conclusion and the long-term solution sentence was used to support this) should shut down all present nuclear plants and build no new nuclear plants.(Again, why should we do this? Because the plan is not a long-term solution)
Question 2
If the appellant's arguments prevail, patients will soon have a legal right to see their medical records (CTXT, simple conditional statement, if this happen, then that happens; this is probably what are argument is going to be about, this is not the argument itself). However, as a doctor, it is my opinion that this would be a mistake (Clearly a conclusion, keep reading to see if this is the main or sub conclusion). First, giving patients access will be time wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files (first premise, so far the last sentence is looking like the main conclusion). Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway (clearly, the opinion of the doctor is the main conclusion supported by 2 premise, with context in the beginning).
Question 3
Economists have long wondered why certain countries have higher income variance than others (Whenever we see, "these people have always thought.." or "some people say..." it will always be context that the argument uses to get itself started)?. Some believe the answers can be found only by examining macroeconomic factors (further context, similar to why the last sentence was CTXT). However, to gain true insight, we must examine the decisions that individual economic actors make (boom! conclusion, this is a great example to show us that we cannot just say CTXT is fluff and forget about it, CTXT by definition is information that is relevant to understanding text) since (embedded premise indicator) macroeconomic forces are nothing more than the aggregation of individual microeconomic choices (the arguments only premise, remember also, more premises doesn't make an argument stronger, we could have an argument that has one premise that is very strong and then have an argument that has 5 premises that is very weak).
Question 4
Primatologist: It is well known (something that is well-known will be context that the argument will use to set up there argument) that Balinese temple macaques are thieves and extortionists, making a living by robbing tourists of their possessions and then holding those objects hostage until a ransom in the form of food is paid. But (marks a shift from context to the authors argument; what can follow these shift indicators can either be a conclusion or premise), these monkeys are cleverer still (okay author, why should I believe you that these monkeys are clever? The fact that I need an answer for this shows that this is the main contention of the author). New research (research is frequently used as evidence) shows that the macaques are able to assess how valuable an object is to its owner, and factor that into their negotiations (which answers the question of why they are clever, this is the premise.).
Question 5
Wheat was first domesticated 12,000 (whenever you see dates like this, it is frequently context) years ago and is now the most widespread crop in the world (pure fact that is setting up the argument). So (conclusion indicator), it seems unlikely there would be much left to learn about what makes it thrive (mhmm.. I was expecting a conclusion from the author, but this actually more of a general statement! further context, remain flexible!) . Yet (shifting word here, be sensitive to what follows!), scientists have recently discovered a new way by which the plant can absorb phosphorus, a much-needed nutrient (this is a subtle conclusion, remember this is not an opinion but rather it is the emphasis of the passage.). Wheat that grows near deserts has been observed to extract phosphorus directly from the dust covering (premise that supports the statement that scientists discovered a new way)
Quick note about question 5. Honestly, it is harder to see the conclusion until you have read the passage completely and thought about it. Once you see that the last sentence supports the scientists finding, you have to automatically see that is the conclusion. What is more subtle about this is that this conclusion is more of a emphasis rather than a straight up opinion. For example, if I say that the game of basketball was invented in 1891. You might first react by thinking "okay, that must be some context information he is going to make about the game basketball." But, then I give a whole spill that supports that information, I tell you the guy who created it lived during that time, I tell you that there is evidence of this in books written around that time and so on. Then you need to say "oh, okay, Preston saying that the game of basketball was invented in 1891 was actually his conclusion, albeit, a boring conclusion."
Do not be married to strong opinionated statements about what a author likes or dislikes as main points. I can write a whole essay about why the sun will shine tomorrow I(with no clear emotion, just boring facts) and that could be my main point/emphasis.
Re: Question 5 - I'm still not sure why the line about scientists discovering phosphorous is a conclusion. It doesn't seem to rest on any of the premises.
Hi, I think the skill builders are great to help stimulate our minds upon what is being taught however i think the repeated questions can be a bit waste of time. I believe mixing the questions up to give us a different look of how they will word questions would help more. But nevertheless i enjoy the skill builders and they are very helpful.
It is a sub-conclusion. I find using the "Therefore Test" useful.
In this case does it make more sense to say:
"They should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately, THEREFORE this is not a sustainable, long term solution."
or
"This is not a sustainable, long term solution, THEREFORE they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately."
Definitely the second. That means we've identified "they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately" as our main conclusion because "this is not a sustainable, long term solution" gives support for it, while also drawing a conclusion based on the context.
I had the same thought, but in looking at it again, I think sentence 2 in Q5 is just a premise and not a sub conclusion. Imagine if sentences 3 & 4 did not exist. It's easier to see that "...restaurants are storing food waste" and "...this is not sustainable" are each stand-alone statements, they don't actually affect each other. It's (deliberately!) confusing because sentence 2 is an opinion about sentence--but they don't actually depend on one another to be true. Does that help?
Regarding Question 5, is "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" premise also could be considered as a sub-conclusion? Making this a complex argument?
@RachelMeltsin I thought the same thing, but the explanation helped me understand it a bit more. The added example about the escape plan helped me see the need to ask what the point is really driving toward. In other words, what is the main point? I rephrase the text in question 5 to say "the status quo is not a sustainable, long-term solution, so they need to shut down." Doing this helped me see that the status quo not working in the long run isn't really the point, it's just emphasizing the need for the main point - to shut things down.
Finally, the reassurance that I don't need to understand all this perfectly gave me a little sigh of relief :)
I see a lot of people getting tripped up on question 5 — debating on how it is a premise and not a sub-conclusion. I was as well, and this is how I broke it down to understand it.
A statement is a sub-conclusion only if the author argues for it and then also uses it to support something else. (It both gives and receives support)
“This is not a sustainable, long-term solution” is a premise because the author never gives a reason why it’s true — it’s just asserted. (It is used to support another statement and not supported by anything else in the stimulus)
Even if a statement helps explain the conclusion, it’s still a premise unless it is also supported by another claim.
@mibuch Thank you for the break down but im still harping on it is a sub conclusion, due to the "why should i believe this claim" part. I should believe the claim that it is not a sustainable, long term solution, my "why" is since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan. Can tell me why it is wrong please?
@Ri I was thinking the same thing. Although maybe the devised recycling claim is made to support the second half of the last sentence and not the said sub conc.
@mibuch Ahh that makes sense. Definitely a bit weird bc I do agree with one of the commenters that the why for this can be since they havent devised a recycling or disposal plan, but you are right I think that claim was made to support the second half of the last sentence not the sustainable long term one, even if it does support it.
I think skill builders would be exponentially more beneficial if we didn't see the same style of question 3-4 times in a row. Instead I think it would be most helpful if 1.1 - 6.3 were randomized to make it more difficult and actually practice seeing context, conclusions, ect..
Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to randomize the questions for a more challenging and effective learning experience. We'll definitely consider this as we work on improving our course Your input is valuable to us!
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions, I am happy to assist you.
I have the same complaint. Randomization would be great! Or, if there was a shuffle button! Also, keep the numbering the same so we can tell that the types of questions go together!
Reiterating for my own learning purpose- In question 5, the sentence "But this is not a a sustainable, long term solution." Is a premise to the conclusion, "...they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.", because it is a statement with no direct support and contributes to the reasoning of the conclusion.
For the 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 problems, they sound like facts rather than arguments. Or rather, it sounds like their conclusion should be the unstated sentence of "But actually, they did find something new" and the conclusion listed as the answer is the premise. Am I just reading something wrong or are unstated conclusions something that are covered on a later lesson or something?
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.
@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
408 comments
Question 1
Although radioactive waste from nuclear power plants across the country is being temporarily stored on site (Can you argue this statement? No. Is this statement supporting? Doesn't seem like it, simply put, this just giving us a fact about the world, it is context) , this is not a satisfactory long-term solution (this is the conclusion, this is clearly the author's opinion, why should I believe this? Naturally, the answer to that question will follow) Since no suitable plan of safe permanent storage of such waste from the nation's existing and planned nuclear plants has been devised (this sentence supports the statement that it is not a long term satisfactory solution, but we have a sentence that follows, let's see if we have a intermediate conclusion), we should stop trying to develop such a plan (why? Because it is not a long term solution) and instead (Now, we see that this is the overall conclusion and the long-term solution sentence was used to support this) should shut down all present nuclear plants and build no new nuclear plants.(Again, why should we do this? Because the plan is not a long-term solution)
Question 2
If the appellant's arguments prevail, patients will soon have a legal right to see their medical records (CTXT, simple conditional statement, if this happen, then that happens; this is probably what are argument is going to be about, this is not the argument itself). However, as a doctor, it is my opinion that this would be a mistake (Clearly a conclusion, keep reading to see if this is the main or sub conclusion). First, giving patients access will be time wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files (first premise, so far the last sentence is looking like the main conclusion). Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway (clearly, the opinion of the doctor is the main conclusion supported by 2 premise, with context in the beginning).
Question 3
Economists have long wondered why certain countries have higher income variance than others (Whenever we see, "these people have always thought.." or "some people say..." it will always be context that the argument uses to get itself started)?. Some believe the answers can be found only by examining macroeconomic factors (further context, similar to why the last sentence was CTXT). However, to gain true insight, we must examine the decisions that individual economic actors make (boom! conclusion, this is a great example to show us that we cannot just say CTXT is fluff and forget about it, CTXT by definition is information that is relevant to understanding text) since (embedded premise indicator) macroeconomic forces are nothing more than the aggregation of individual microeconomic choices (the arguments only premise, remember also, more premises doesn't make an argument stronger, we could have an argument that has one premise that is very strong and then have an argument that has 5 premises that is very weak).
Question 4
Primatologist: It is well known (something that is well-known will be context that the argument will use to set up there argument) that Balinese temple macaques are thieves and extortionists, making a living by robbing tourists of their possessions and then holding those objects hostage until a ransom in the form of food is paid. But (marks a shift from context to the authors argument; what can follow these shift indicators can either be a conclusion or premise), these monkeys are cleverer still (okay author, why should I believe you that these monkeys are clever? The fact that I need an answer for this shows that this is the main contention of the author). New research (research is frequently used as evidence) shows that the macaques are able to assess how valuable an object is to its owner, and factor that into their negotiations (which answers the question of why they are clever, this is the premise.).
Question 5
Wheat was first domesticated 12,000 (whenever you see dates like this, it is frequently context) years ago and is now the most widespread crop in the world (pure fact that is setting up the argument). So (conclusion indicator), it seems unlikely there would be much left to learn about what makes it thrive (mhmm.. I was expecting a conclusion from the author, but this actually more of a general statement! further context, remain flexible!) . Yet (shifting word here, be sensitive to what follows!), scientists have recently discovered a new way by which the plant can absorb phosphorus, a much-needed nutrient (this is a subtle conclusion, remember this is not an opinion but rather it is the emphasis of the passage.). Wheat that grows near deserts has been observed to extract phosphorus directly from the dust covering (premise that supports the statement that scientists discovered a new way)
Quick note about question 5. Honestly, it is harder to see the conclusion until you have read the passage completely and thought about it. Once you see that the last sentence supports the scientists finding, you have to automatically see that is the conclusion. What is more subtle about this is that this conclusion is more of a emphasis rather than a straight up opinion. For example, if I say that the game of basketball was invented in 1891. You might first react by thinking "okay, that must be some context information he is going to make about the game basketball." But, then I give a whole spill that supports that information, I tell you the guy who created it lived during that time, I tell you that there is evidence of this in books written around that time and so on. Then you need to say "oh, okay, Preston saying that the game of basketball was invented in 1891 was actually his conclusion, albeit, a boring conclusion."
Do not be married to strong opinionated statements about what a author likes or dislikes as main points. I can write a whole essay about why the sun will shine tomorrow I(with no clear emotion, just boring facts) and that could be my main point/emphasis.
Thank you so much! I was confused about question 5 and your explanation cleared things up great
Awesome comments in every lesson.
Re: Question 5 - I'm still not sure why the line about scientists discovering phosphorous is a conclusion. It doesn't seem to rest on any of the premises.
Hi, I think the skill builders are great to help stimulate our minds upon what is being taught however i think the repeated questions can be a bit waste of time. I believe mixing the questions up to give us a different look of how they will word questions would help more. But nevertheless i enjoy the skill builders and they are very helpful.
Yeah the V1 skill builders were way more in depth. These seem very cookie cutter. #feedback
agreed! #feedback
Yup. The repeats are stupid
I agree #feedback
Agree. I don’t know if I’m getting them right because I understand them, or if it’s just because I’ve learned the pattern. #feedback
Agree they should spice it up or at the very least mix the order. #feedback
The way I use them is to do a question and if I get it right I move on to the next series. If not i'll use the other questions.
echo this point
5 tripped me up. I thought it had 2 conclusions. the first main one being the sustainable long term, and the sub being the last sentence.
@_seb Same!
@_seb Me too
In question 5, is "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" considered a major premise or sub-conclusion?
I have the same question.
I've identified that sentence to be a major premise/sub conclusion as well. Would be keen to know what others think!
It is a sub-conclusion. I find using the "Therefore Test" useful.
In this case does it make more sense to say:
"They should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately, THEREFORE this is not a sustainable, long term solution."
or
"This is not a sustainable, long term solution, THEREFORE they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately."
Definitely the second. That means we've identified "they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately" as our main conclusion because "this is not a sustainable, long term solution" gives support for it, while also drawing a conclusion based on the context.
I had the same thought, but in looking at it again, I think sentence 2 in Q5 is just a premise and not a sub conclusion. Imagine if sentences 3 & 4 did not exist. It's easier to see that "...restaurants are storing food waste" and "...this is not sustainable" are each stand-alone statements, they don't actually affect each other. It's (deliberately!) confusing because sentence 2 is an opinion about sentence--but they don't actually depend on one another to be true. Does that help?
Regarding Question 5, is "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" premise also could be considered as a sub-conclusion? Making this a complex argument?
@RachelMeltsin I thought the same thing, but the explanation helped me understand it a bit more. The added example about the escape plan helped me see the need to ask what the point is really driving toward. In other words, what is the main point? I rephrase the text in question 5 to say "the status quo is not a sustainable, long-term solution, so they need to shut down." Doing this helped me see that the status quo not working in the long run isn't really the point, it's just emphasizing the need for the main point - to shut things down.
Finally, the reassurance that I don't need to understand all this perfectly gave me a little sigh of relief :)
@RachelMeltsin I thought this too!
This would be a lot better if i can highlight
I see a lot of people getting tripped up on question 5 — debating on how it is a premise and not a sub-conclusion. I was as well, and this is how I broke it down to understand it.
A statement is a sub-conclusion only if the author argues for it and then also uses it to support something else. (It both gives and receives support)
“This is not a sustainable, long-term solution” is a premise because the author never gives a reason why it’s true — it’s just asserted. (It is used to support another statement and not supported by anything else in the stimulus)
Even if a statement helps explain the conclusion, it’s still a premise unless it is also supported by another claim.
Feel free to disagree or explain another way!
@mibuch thank you for breaking it down, I needed this
@mibuch This was super helpful thank you
@mibuch Thank you for the break down but im still harping on it is a sub conclusion, due to the "why should i believe this claim" part. I should believe the claim that it is not a sustainable, long term solution, my "why" is since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan. Can tell me why it is wrong please?
@Ri I was thinking the same thing. Although maybe the devised recycling claim is made to support the second half of the last sentence and not the said sub conc.
@mibuch Ahh that makes sense. Definitely a bit weird bc I do agree with one of the commenters that the why for this can be since they havent devised a recycling or disposal plan, but you are right I think that claim was made to support the second half of the last sentence not the sustainable long term one, even if it does support it.
In 3.1, why is "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution." a PREMISE and not a SUB-CONCLUSION??
wondering the same thing!
I think skill builders would be exponentially more beneficial if we didn't see the same style of question 3-4 times in a row. Instead I think it would be most helpful if 1.1 - 6.3 were randomized to make it more difficult and actually practice seeing context, conclusions, ect..
Hi there,
Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to randomize the questions for a more challenging and effective learning experience. We'll definitely consider this as we work on improving our course Your input is valuable to us!
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions, I am happy to assist you.
I have the same complaint. Randomization would be great! Or, if there was a shuffle button! Also, keep the numbering the same so we can tell that the types of questions go together!
This escalated quickly
Reiterating for my own learning purpose- In question 5, the sentence "But this is not a a sustainable, long term solution." Is a premise to the conclusion, "...they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.", because it is a statement with no direct support and contributes to the reasoning of the conclusion.
Q4 and 5 were so similar I thought they were the same! idk how many times I need to tell myself to SLOW TF DOWN
Lol exactly my issue.
If there is a highlight function, it would be greatly helpful.
The real test does have a highlight function :)
4/5, The last question I knew was gonna throw me for a loop seeing the same prompt with that minor change.
Q5 tripped me up. I forgot that "But" statements can simply just be transitioning to the argument and could be a sub-conclusion/major premise
4/5. I really thought "this is not a sustainable, long-term solution" was a sub conclusion.
For the 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 problems, they sound like facts rather than arguments. Or rather, it sounds like their conclusion should be the unstated sentence of "But actually, they did find something new" and the conclusion listed as the answer is the premise. Am I just reading something wrong or are unstated conclusions something that are covered on a later lesson or something?
#help
for q5 would "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution," be a sub conclusion?
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.
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
Would "But this is not sustainable.." be a sub-conclusion?
We are so back
5/5
5/5 let's gooooo we are in this together
4/5... I am getting better with content but I am still slow with speed.