Comments

• 1 Like

  Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  8.) The last sentence is not an intermediate conclusion because the segment before it ("any conceivable life...depends on...) does not support it. They are two separate pieces of evidence to support the main and only conclusion in the first sentence. These premises do not directly support each other.

  20.) This one was hard. The argument concludes that we can expect the number of jobs to decrease overall despite the fact that coal mining would bring over new jobs. Now that's strange; shouldn't that mean jobs would increase in the region? Perhaps coal mining would bring more jobs but ultimately cause a net loss with more jobs leaving the region as a result. And that's what they get at: Businesses would close because they depend on the region for natural beauty

  A.) The last part of the last sentence is an intermediate conclusion: Heavy industrial mining would force most of them (the businesses) to close. Why? Because they depend on natural beauty
  B.) This is not a direct premise because the argument's conclusion wouldn't make sense if it were the only premise there. "The number of jobs would decrease if coal mining were allowed?" Why? "Because local businesses depend on natural beauty?" It doesn't make sense. It needs that second half.
  C.) Is this an intermediate conclusion? No, because it has no support
  D.) It is not the overall conclusion; the first sentence is
  E.) This is not a hypothesis and is used to support the argument's overall conclusion

  They're both role questions, but are different in terms of difficulty so look at them separately.
• captainwoofs-1-1-1 Alum Member

  December 2020 99 karma

  Thank you for your response! I am still a bit confused in regards to the similarity. In question 8, the argument part in question makes the second sentence more relevant to the conclusion because it gives us a necessary condition and the last part of the sentence tells us that necessary condition exists and has been met. In the same regard for question 20, the argument part in question makes that last part more relevant and as a result makes that part an intermediate conclusion.

  I am confused about how these two stimuli are analogous in that sense but dis-analogous in having/not having an intermediate conclusion.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  I meant that I wouldn't see these two questions as "similar" just because they're role questions; every question is different and you might get more confused if you try to see similarities when there aren't any.

  I wouldn't really look at number 8 as a conditional reasoning type question. So our sun has a lot of hydrogen and helium; the segment before it, the whole life needing hydrogen and helium doesn't support that statement. that's why there is no intermediate conclusion in this particular question. it's just two separate premises and one main conclusion

  20 does have an intermediate conclusion. It's a conclusion because it has a premise supporting it but it's not the main conclusion because it's a premise as well for the main conclusion. IC's are both premises and conclusions

  Premise: These businesses depend on natural beauty (assuming coal mining is detrimental to that natural beauty. This has no premise supporting it so it is not a conclusion.
  IC: Coal mining will cause many businesses to close. Why?
  MC: Allowing coal mining will cause a net decrease in jobs. Why?
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  December 2020 2249 karma

  and it's true that the necessary condition shows up but that doesn't necessarily support the conditional statement. the necessary can show up without the sufficient
  life---> abundance of hydrogen and helium
  abundance of hydrogen and helium