Main Conclusion vs. Sub Conclusion in Method of Reasoning (pg. 497 #4)

[kupwarriors9]

Hi!

How do I know how to distinguish the main conclusion from the sub-conclusion on question 4 on page 497 of the 2020 LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible? I tried doing the method in Chapter 2, however, there are already indicator words present so I keep getting confused. I also tried looking at past posts in the forum but I still do not understand. I originally had "Thus, the more of our diets..." as the sub conclusion and "it is clear...lean meat and seafood" as the main conclusion.

Thank you,
KW9

[atierney]

Hi!

You know I always like to think of arguments as rivers flowing; you basically follow the flow of information (i.e. what conclusions lead into what). I don't know how helpful that particular metaphor is, but generally, a sub-conclusion is added to another premise, that won't necessarily be connected to the information within that sub-conclusion, to "build" the main conclusion (i.e. two rivers meeting together to form a bigger river, like the Amazon). Being able to parse an argument into premises and conclusions, a skill worth developing, especially studying for the LSAT, and this relies on your indicators as well as what information depends upon what. Sometimes, it is not clear, even with the indicators, and this is where you really have to rely on the overall context of the argument, and this often intangible flow quality each argument (and any writing exposition) has.

Here, notice that the final two sentences, the premise that when we stray a natural diet we're unhealthy, and the conclusion that the more we keep to a natural diet, the healthier we'll be, doesn't really support the idea that we are still biologically adapted to eat wild foods, which is derived from the premise that we have evolved very little since the development of agriculture. Now, you might have thought that it was the observation that we do get sick when we do stray from this "natural diet," but to me, it is very clear that the final sentence uses that first sentence in a way that the first sentence simply fails to do when the roles are reversed. In other words, the final sentence needs the intermediate conclusion to form a logically-sound argument, but the first sentence can simply exist on its own, with its proof coming in that first premise, found in the first half of the first sentence.

This is the type of analysis you would want to do for all Argument-Part questions.

[kupwarriors9]

Thank you.