Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Conclusion Types

nanabillannanabillan Member
edited October 2020 in General 347 karma

Hi everyone.

I might be a little late to the party with this question but does anyone have a list of conclusion types?
Perhaps even with an example Q to go along with it for reference (if not I am still appreciative).

I came across a NA Q (PT 70.1.13, for those who are interested) and I struggled with this Q until I saw a comment that cleared it all up for me. I don't want to put this person on the spot by publicizing their 7sage username but to quote their comment, " [the] key to answering this conclusion requires identifying what type of conclusion is made. in this question, the conclusion is a comparative statement about the effectiveness of an ad". As soon as I noticed that the conclusion was in fact a comparative statement, I knew what I had to do and the AC I eliminated time and time again became the obvious answer.
That is when I had my 'aha' moment! So then I said to myself we can have a causal conclusion, comparative, one based on a likelihood/probability, cause and effect, etc. "What conclusion types are there and what do I do when I have spotted it" became my train of thought.

Being that the LSAT is a marathon and not a sprint, and with that being said, I am ready to close my LR gap a bit further now. I suspect that being able to identify the type of conclusion made in an argument helps close that LR gap.

Is this something that I missed in the CC?

High LR scorers: do you implement this in your analysis of an argument?
Very interested to hear your comments because I think this is key to what is holding me back in LR.

(I also struggle with RC and I think taking this ultra-sensitive approach might help me as well.)

Thanks 7Sagers!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • hopefullinghopefulling Member
    edited October 2020 905 karma

    The only place I've seen conclusion types mentioned is on the Kahn Academy and in argumentation books (that discuss methods of argument in more detail). I don't think you need to be as focused on the conclusion type for this question. If you look at the 'dangling variable' / middle term referring to the 'other ad,' you can come to the NA naturally.

    There are some benefits to analyzing the conclusion type. For example, if the conclusion makes a prediction or recommendation (and analogy/comparison), there are embedded implications.

    It can be a handy tool for parallel (and method) questions, since the conclusion types will match, but it can add time to the analysis unnecessarily also. Sometimes the conclusion type relates to a method answer: in how the argument proceeds and all.

    I think generally, in an analysis of the argument's structure/form it's useful, but not crucial. Especially since it's not often relevant to what the question is asking ...

    Otherwise, I turned the types on Kahn (plus, I added a 7th after something JY mentions in the CC) into a little acronym, to make it easier to remember them. I've also noticed, through practice, that it becomes intuitive - you just recognize the type when you read and identify the conclusion. I'm overall not a fan of the Kahn site, as this was one of the few helpful bits of info (to me at least).

    I'm curious to see what others think, if this is part of their analysis. :)

  • hopefullinghopefulling Member
    edited October 2020 905 karma

    A - assessments (not objective, assigns some subjective attribute)
    C - (analogy or comparative relationship); analogies have implications
    I - (conditional or causal relationship); 'I' for 'if/then' statement
    P - predictions = implications!
    R - recommendations = implications!
    O - value judgments/assertions (opinions) - as plain claims / beliefs

    E - explanations that act to clarify, not just express a definition of the phenomenon.

    ... don't know if a better word jumble could be created instead.

  • hopefullinghopefulling Member
    905 karma

    Oh crappers, I just looked in my notes to confirm, but it WASN'T Kahn with this, it was KAPLAN. Kahn only had the seven method of argument types (which isn't really exhaustive, in my opinion ... ). Whoops! I must say, that there are some hidden gems in the Kaplan book (I read the Premiere 2016 copy from my library, but then picked up a 2018-19 copy for cheap as a reference guide when I had to return the 2016 book). It's in the 2018 'Unlocked' copy on about page 414 - around the start of the Main Point question type.

  • nanabillannanabillan Member
    347 karma

    Thank you for your responses!
    I will see if I can get access to it! @hopefulling

Sign In or Register to comment.