Attacking sub-conclusions?

Slow is Fast

In arguments, we're supposed to take premises as facts and question the conclusions. But intermediate conclusions are both used as premises (to support the main conclusion) and as conclusions in and of themselves (albeit subsidiary ones).

So how would you treat them if you were trying to evaluate the validity of an argument? Is is acceptable to attack or challenge a sub-conclusion? Assume we have a weaken question-- would we ever see an instance of a correct answer attacking the causality of a sub-conclusion?

zoomzoom

As a rule of thumb, you should almost never (99%) attack a sub-conclusion because it is still a premise FOR the main conclusion. Therefore, take that sub-conclusion as true and treat it like a premise and look for the gap in the argument (why those premises don't justify the conclusion).

For example:

Argument: "Lebron James possesses 4 championship rings. This undoubtedly makes him a proven winner and champion. Therefore, he is the greatest basketball player in history."

Rebuttal: "Well, for the sake of argument, I accept as true as that Lebron winning 4 rings undoubtedly makes him a proven winner and champion. But still...look at Michael Jordan. The man has 6 rings. He is without question the best player in history."

Accept the sub-conclusion as true no matter how much you agree and disagree with it but question the conclusion.

There are of course that 1% of times where a premise is attacked/questioned but that is very, very rare so for the most part, stay the course.

cklomoooooo-1

Assuming what you meant by attacking the sub-conclusion is actually attacking the support between premise and sub-conclusion. yes, some questions will require you to attack the support between premise and sub-conclusion. I have seen it happened a few times in the core-curriculum and also in pts. It happened when the support between sub conclusion and conclusion is quite strong, therefore you need to attack the support between premise and sub-conclusion. > @"Slow is Fast" said:

In arguments, we're supposed to take premises as facts and question the conclusions. But intermediate conclusions are both used as premises (to support the main conclusion) and as conclusions in and of themselves (albeit subsidiary ones).

So how would you treat them if you were trying to evaluate the validity of an argument? Is is acceptable to attack or challenge a sub-conclusion? Assume we have a weaken question-- would we ever see an instance of a correct answer attacking the causality of a sub-conclusion?

Slow is Fast

@oychoi79 & @cklomoooooo Yes, I did mean to ask whether it was common/acceptable to attack the relationship between premise and sub-conclusion. Both of your responses were very helpful. Thank you!