@nnkNewYork Might be both? In terms of grammatical structure, "that" is the object, and the clause that follows describes the object in detail. But yeah, it's also a referential, referring to what "that" is. In terms of the grammatical structure of the sentence, it is a valid sentence if it simply says, "Scientists discovered that."

@danielgibbons2018 There's no object clause in the example you've given, as far as I understand it. "Yields" or "higher U.S. yields" is the object, but the "by" that follows it is merely modifying the object; it is not the object itself, which IS the case when it comes to object clauses.

@HelenaGurri Referential that

Startin' to get to that juicier bit I was askin' for before about how this might be used by even English-savvy folks to some effect. Useful lesson for breaking complicated-seeming stuff into something more clear stuff.

Wish they would include a really hard example with these easier ones so that folks (like me) for whom English is pretty intuitive and natural might have a reason to toy with these grammatical strategies a little bit more (or at least engage with how they might be useful).

@D.K._DANDY Diarrhea Lord Shitzai

This question is absolutely brilliant. There's literally nothing to it other than actually realizing that each part of the desk being made of metal actually does in fact make the desk being made of metal true.

@coconut Celery.

@Lia24788 Was thinking that too.

@Hfa Eh, as it ramps up it gets more interesting, but I found the early grammar lessons to be somewhat boring. Might be just a pacing/maintaining interest thing. I would have rolled my eyes if the lessons started with this.

@jaidaanderson That's exactly what it is. Probably gonna get applied for splicing complex sentences into more manageable bits for when you're brain is cooked and you need strats for breaking things down rather than trying to wrestle with giant sentences as whole pieces when you're tired. (Alternative: Don't get tired ;) )

@rosenb1um Now THAT'S power!

@Erakatzo Always start with the question.

Again bringing the political lense, just because... Sometimes it's useful to make assertions WITHOUT stating your premises, as it makes your conclusions seem obvious and factual and like everybody already understands what you're saying without even having to back it up. Keep your reasons for your beliefs in your back pocket in case somebody decides to challenge you.

Could it be the "This is not a sustainable, long-term solution" is not a sub-conclusion simply because there's no premise supporting it? Seems to me that's the best case for why it's not a conclusion.

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.

32 seconds saved. Nice.

@misoop There's no relationship between the various claims. They're all just independent claims.

Something that's helping me to understand the relationship between "support" and premise+conclusion: Does the premise "support" the conclusion? (And then following, is that relationship weak or strong? ETc.)

Funny aside: I feel like this stuff makes it harder to be effective in political communication in this environment. Normies (most people) don't want to hear the "reasons"--they want you to tell them what's what. In politics, it's often better to start with your conclusion and have your premises on backburner when and/or if people have a problem with your conclusion. Frontloading premises bores people, and it's why Democrats aren't as strong as they could be.

It's not, "DT is making billions off the presidency, therefore he sucks,"

It's, "DT sucks. Got a problem with that? Ask me questions or take it up with God."

Hello to the other two people in the comments section ;)