Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do explanation sentences in an argument offer support?

MarkmarkMarkmark Alum Member

If a sentence gives an explanation, does this mean the sentence offers support? I've run into this issue twice on argument part questions. 70.1.17 was one, the other was on another test.

As an example I've made a simple argument:

Conclusion: Global warming is real.
Premise 1: Global temperatures are rising.
Explanation of premise1: Global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon, like global warming, must be occurring.

I've tried to make an argument where you have a clear conclusion, a supporting premise, then a sentence that gives more information on the premise. Does that explaining sentence give support to anything? Is an explanation the same as support?

Comments

  • Chris NguyenChris Nguyen Alum Member Administrator Sage 7Sage Tutor
    4572 karma

    Interesting question. Yes, that sentence gives an explanation, but isn't that explanation also a conditional statement that supports your conclusion? So yes, an explanation can offer support. But I don't think it has to in all cases.

    Whether or not an explanation offers support depends on what the sentence is actually explaining. In the argument above, I think you mislabeled your 3rd sentence. I don't think the third sentence is an explanation of premise 1. An explanation of premise 1 would be something like "global temperatures are rising because of increasing carbon emissions". It would explain why global temperatures are rising. Rather, the third sentence helps explain, or make clear why global warming is real. Therefore supporting the conclusion.

    So what the explanation is explaining depends on whether or not such explanation offers support. Hope this helps!

  • edited June 2020 410 karma

    I think I've seen something super similar in a recent preptest, and when asked about that specific argument part the answer choice is something like "It is offered as support for the premise that is in turn used to support the overall conclusion of the argument" or something like "It is a statement that helps to explain an idea that is used to infer the only conclusion of the argument". A more realistic stimulus might look something like this:

    Science Magazine: Despite what some scientists think, global warming is real. This is because global temperatures are rising, and global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon such as global warming must be occurring.

    If we were to ask What role does "global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon such as global warming must be occurring" play in the Science Magazine's argument?

    The trap answer would be something like "It is offered as direct support for the conclusion." But it by itself does not help the conclusion. (Test it by asking why global warming is real, then stick in the italicized part.

    It only makes sense in context with the premise. "Since global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon such as global warming must be occurring, and global temperatures ARE rising, therefore global warming is real."

  • MarkmarkMarkmark Alum Member
    976 karma

    @Christopherr
    Ya you made a better example sentence than I did. So if an explanation sentence is just explaining a premise this sometimes does and sometimes doesn't provide support for the premise? If it does sometimes then the premise would be an intermediate conclusion which is a big deal for argument structure

  • MarkmarkMarkmark Alum Member
    976 karma

    @jeff.wongkachi
    Ya I agree with your example and explanation. You're saying in the case you provided the italicized sentence is an explanation for the premise but the italicized sentence does NOT offer support for the main conclusion right?
    Would you say the argument structure is just C, P, explanation, or would it be C, intermediate conclusion, explanation?

  • 410 karma

    @Markmark said:
    @jeff.wongkachi
    Ya I agree with your example and explanation. You're saying in the case you provided the italicized sentence is an explanation for the premise but the italicized sentence does NOT offer support for the main conclusion right?
    Would you say the argument structure is just C, P, explanation, or would it be C, intermediate conclusion, explanation?

    I would say C, P, Explanation. Doesn't match intermediate conclusion because it doesn't pass the therefore test:

    global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon such as global warming must be occurring, therefore global temperatures are rising.

    Doesn't really make much sense. It's additional detail added onto a fact.

    Hope this helps! Sorry I didn't reply sooner, for some reason I didn't get any notifications that I was pinged or that there was movement in this topic.

Sign In or Register to comment.