PT7.S4.Q02 - some legislators refuse to commit

Giant Panda

Dear Sir,

Here is my question: please take a look at the statement above. Of the 3rd sentence, begins with "Many important...", do you consider the sentence a minor conclusion or a major premise or a rephrase of the (major) conclusion?

And a general question, does the statement, "A major premise" is always a sub-conclusion" stand? if not, can you please explain, thanks.

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions! You can get in trouble with LSAC.

• Conclusion: Such position ignores the lessons of experience Referential phrase “such position” referring to the, “Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare”.
• Minor conclusion/major premise/Rephrase of major conclusion: Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research.
• Minor premise/citing example: Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics—one of the greatest contribution ever made to the public welfare.

Accounts Playable

To answer your question about the role of the 3rd sentence, it's just a vanilla premise that supports the sub-conclusion that is the second sentence. It is not a restatement of the main conclusion of the argument nor a sub-conclusion.

In formal logic, there are difference between a major premise and an intermediate conclusion.

According to the LSAC's definition from question 56.2.25, "When determining whether a particular proposition in an argument constitutes an intermediate conclusion, we need to consider how that proposition functions in the argument overall. An intermediate conclusion, like a main conclusion, is a proposition whose truth is inferred from another statement (or other statements) in the argument."

A major premise is an element in a syllogistic argument. Specifically, the general statement is the major premise and the specific statement is the minor premise. Say we have this argument:

1.) No geese are felines.
2.) Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.

1 is the major premise and 2 is the minor premise.

I thought this website was pretty helpful in defining these sorts of things: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

inactive

Hey guys, please don't post full questions on the discussion forums. See rules here:
https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

Giant Panda

@"Dillon A. Wright" In the event of future questions, I will then paraphrase or use part of the question

Giant Panda

@"Accounts Playable" Thank you very much.