Conclusion Indicator Traps

Matthew-1

Hi all, I am currently going through the CC, specifically the weakening questions. I have found that in many of these questions, identifying the conclusion seems pretty straightforward (thus, therefore), and even at the end of the paragraph. However, I keep thinking of MP and MSS questions, where conclusion indicators at the end are often traps for a sub-conclusion. What are your experiences with conclusion indicator traps? Do they typically just apply to MSS and MP, or should I continue to look for them, even in weakening and other LR questions?

NotMyName

Continue to look for them. Eventually, you'll spot the conclusion and premises automatically. Like when you are learning to drive, you have to remember to check your blind spot before changing lanes every time, but eventually it becomes second nature. Every question type turns on locating the premise and conclusion so test writers can make any question, regardless of question type, more difficult by hiding them.

Harrison_Pav

Definitely for MP and I would even say to a degree MSS questions the words "thus", and "therefore" are traps. They aren't always traps, but for the harder ones I think they are. When reading those questions there will definitely be statements that will make the reader ask, "why should I believe that?" and sometimes even two of those statements lead to this, but I think what is important to ask while taking the test is, "which one of these statements lends more support to the other or are these two statements together forming one larger conclusion?" For example, the latter could be an argument that says

"some people claim the sky is red. However, because the sky is clearly blue, they are wrong. And anyone who says the sky is red has ulterior motives for saying the sky is red. Thus they must have an ulterior motive for saying the sky is red."

In this argument, their are two statements that are conclusion sounding, but obviously there is only one conclusion, and that could be phrased as

"some people have ulterior motives for making claims that are wrong."

I hope this helps! best of luck

AllezAllez21

Rather than relying exclusively on word indicators, I am constantly relating the sentences to one another. I think about the relevancy of the previous sentence to the current sentence and vice versa. This helps me to build the structure of the trickier stimuli.

For some of the harder MP questions, the conclusion is earlier in the stimulus and not obviously stated. But if you look at how the rest of the sentences relate to that earlier conclusion, you will see they offer support for it, rather than the other way around. This is what helps to distinguish the conclusion: the other sentences lend support for it.

NotMyName

@AllezAllez21 totally agree. It's a mini-exercise for RC MP. What is the purpose of this passage?

Freddy_D

I think the biggest thing is understanding what the stimulus is saying. If you understand what the argument is, then the presence of indicators is just icing on the cake. Understanding what is receiving support and what is providing support is of the utmost importance. This is especially evident when "common" indicators are not being used.

TLDR version: don't become too reliant on indicators, work towards understanding what the stimulus is saying.

Matthew-1

Thank you all so much!