Self-study
Like a number of other articles, Ian Raghnall’s article relied on a recent survey in which over half the couples applying for divorces listed “money” as a major problem in their marriages. ████████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ██████████
Objective: Identify the Main Conclusion
For a Main Conclusion question, we want to pay attention to the support structure of the argument: claims acting as premises will support claims acting as conclusions. We can also pay attention to context clues to identify a conclusion. This stimulus doesn't use helpful indicator words like "therefore", but we can consider the position the stimulus agrees or disagrees with to get an idea what it's trying to say.
The context for this stimulus is an article by Ian Raghnall about a recent survey of divorcing couples. Most of the couples surveyed said "money" was a major problem for their marriages, so Raghnall concluded that financial problems are the main issue for marriages.
The stimulus, however takes issue with Raghnall's conclusion, using words of opposition like "yet" and "despite". According to the stimulus, couples express other problems in terms of money. This supports the conclusion that the survey does not establish that financial problems are the main issue for marriages, as Raghnall claims. This is the argument's conclusion, and where it reaches its disagreement with Raghnall.
18.
Which one of the following █████████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
a
Financial problems are ███ ██ █████████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
The stimulus doesn't make this claim; it only says that the survey doesn't support financial problems being the main problem for marriages. That doesn't equate to the exact opposite claim, that financial problems aren't an important problem at all.
b
Marital problems are ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ████
The stimulus doesn't mention marriage counselors or how to solve marital problems at all. Because the stimulus never makes or implies this claim, it can't be the conclusion.
c
The conclusion drawn ██ ████████████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ██████████
In other words, to conclude that the survey supports financial problems being the main problem in marriages (Raghnall's conclusion) isn't justified. This is the claim supported by the argument: that the survey doesn't actually establish such a conclusion.
d
Over half the ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ █ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████
This is a factual claim stated as context, not the argument's conclusion. Nothing else in the stimulus supports this claim.
e
Many articles wrongly █████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
There are two major issues with (E). First, the stimulus only says that several articles relied on the survey; we don't know their conclusions, only Raghnall's conclusion. Without knowing if the articles make this claim, the stimulus can't be concluding that they're wrong.
Second, the stimulus never claims that Raghnall's conclusion is wrong, only that it's not supported. The stimulus leaves it open that money problems could still be couples' main issue; it's just that they survey doesn't tell us that.