#17 - Photographs show an area of Europa, a moon of Jupiter,

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mokkyukkyu]

It may not related to the argument directly...
But, why do they equates "turbulent water" and "warm sea"?
sea can be cold right?
Not ice does not nec. mean the sea is warm...
Could you explain why this is the case? May not directly related to the reasoning, but it may does I thought...

Thank you

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

Thanks for your question!

Our job is not to question the argument, but identify the function of a particular argument part. To answer your question, the author most likely used the word "warm" to contrast the water temperature to that of the icy surface, which is obviously cold. The argument is certainly not bullet-proof: the buckled icy surface could have easily been caused by something else, or the water temperature below may still be too cold to support life.

None of this has any bearing on the structure of the argument, which is key to attacking this question.

The argument is structured as follows:

Premise: Photographic evidence of a buckled icy surface.

Sub. Conclusion: There is a warm sea beneath the surface.

Premise: The presence of such a sea is the primary factor in the early development of life.

Conclusion: There may be life on Europa.

Since the referenced claim is at once supported by the first sentence, and also supports the last sentence in the stimulus, it is a subsidiary conclusion - validating answer choice (A).

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I'm not seeing how this is a sub- conclusion. The Premise is the first sentence, but the second sentence literally says "photographic evidence" referring to the icy surface. This seems like the only evidence that is being used to support the main conclusion that there is reason to believe that there may be life on Europa. The second sentence seems to me very objective in that its using evidence or support from outside source (photographs) instead of the authors opinion.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

To see the nature of the second sentence, break the argument into smaller pieces. First, take the first two sentences alone and you'll see that the second sentence is a conclusion based on the evidence given in the first sentence. A simple paraphrase might "there's buckling so there's a warm sea."

Now, ignore the first sentence, and the rest of the stimulus is a complete argument, too. Also paraphrased, that argument is something like "there's a warm sea, and warm seas indicate life, so there could be life there."

Since the claim that there is a warm sea functions as both a conclusion (of the first part of the stimulus) and as a premise (for the latter half, which has the main conclusion), it must be a subsidiary conclusion, as described in answer choice A.

It's not about facts vs opinions, Sarah, but only about how the argument is structured. I hope that helps!

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Adam,

Okay so the second sentence is being used to support the idea that there may be life on Europa b/c of a possible warm sea. Which is the main conclusion.

Thanks for clarifying.
Sarah

[nlittle]

How would you have described the statement that the presence of such a sea is thought by scientists to be a primary factor in early development of life? Is it just an additional premise which when combined with the intermediate conclusion forms the overall conclusion?

[Claire Horan]

Yes, exactly!

[BostonLawGuy]

Like others, I also chose (E).

As I understand the argument, "a warm sea beneath Europa's surface" receives support by the "photographic evidence." It seems logical that evidence of something is support.

"A warm sea" also supports the contention by scientists that is a "primary factor in early life."

"A primary factor in early life" finally supports the main conclusion.

As I have outlined it above, it appears that "A warm sea beneath Europa" supports the subsidiary conclusion.

I would love to know exactly what I am missing. Please help?

[James Finch]

Hi Boston Law Guy,

As a Method question, you always want to be on the lookout for subsidiary/intermediate conclusions. Here, the stimulus is given in a very straightforward structure:

Sentence 1 serves as a premise.
Sentence 2 is a conclusion based upon the evidence given in sentence 1.
Sentence 3 begins with another premise that is combined with sentence 2's information to give us our main conclusion.

The question stem then asks us to identify the part played by sentence 2 in the argument. As it acts as both a conclusion and a premise, it is a subsidiary/intermediate conclusion. (A) correctly identifies this role, while (E) would have it serve the role of the first sentence, as a premise in support of an intermediate conclusion.

Hope this clears things up!