#24 - Mainstream economic theory holds that manufacturers

[kupwarriors9]

So does this question contain no subsidiary conclusion whatsoever? I thought majority of Method of Reasoning-AP questions contained subsidiary conclusions.

I wouldn't describe the clause "even mainstream economic theorists watch television" as an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion, as there's no evidence given in an attempt to prove that statement (the requirement of any conclusion, intermediate or main). Instead that phrase is simply used to apply the preceding information about "as anyone who watches television knows" to mainstream economic theorists, and thereby demonstrate that their motive for the claim in the first sentence isn't purely disinterested concern for scientific truth.

In other words, the economic theorists should know that most major manufacturers manipulate and even create consumer demand, since all tv viewers know this and econ theorists are undoubtedly tv viewers. That phrase simply lumps econ theorists into the tv viewer category, about which we've been told something. And then once we know that the theorists are aware of manufacturers' behavior we're given the conclusion: theorists' motives for their theory are more than just indifferent concern for truth.

I hope that helps!

Also, there's a more comprehensive breakdown of this entire question here (if interested): lsat/viewtopic.php?f=675&t=9045&p=14301

[Robert Carroll]

kup,

I don't see a subconclusion. Further, while it's reasonably common to have subconclusions in the stimulus when the question type is Method of Reasoning - Argument Part, it's not universal, and I don't even know if it's a majority. It's better not to stereotype these stimuli and instead to take them on their own terms.

Robert Carroll