#23 - Each of many different human hormones can by itself

[Nfontes93]

Thank you! Yes, I have seen other questions similar to this so your explanation helps me a lot. I usually get confused over which is the main conclusion and which is the sub-conclusion.

[jcough346]

Hi Powerscore, got this question right BUT was shaky on my answer.

Ended up eliminating:

A - because it wasn't talking about each individual hormones as its focus
and
C and D as I considered them to be premises more than anything else.

Got down to B and E but wasn't 100% on either.

Are my reasons for eliminating A, C, and D correct and what differentiates B from E?

Thanks
James

[Adam Tyson]

Nice work, jcough - your reasons for eliminating A, C and D are solid, on the money.

Let's focus on B and E, your two contenders, and see not so much how they are different, but how they relate to one another.

When we are looking for the Main Point, we are looking for something a little selfish. We want a claim that was in the argument and which got all the support and gave none. It's greedy that way. So, in analyzing your answers, and especially when you have only two contenders, ask yourself whether those answers supported any other claim in the argument. It would be particularly interesting if one of your contenders supported the other, as will happen if one of the answers is a "subordinate" conclusion, based in part on some premises but ultimately supporting the main conclusion.

So, put these two statements together and ask yourself whether one supports the other. Does "it's a quirk" support "brains need glucose", or does "brains need glucose" support "it's a quirk"? I would argue that it's the latter - brains need glucose to survive supports the idea that having a bunch of different hormones all produce glucose is a quirk of brain of the brain (it's a survival tactic). I don't think "it's a quirk of the brain that hormones do that" supports the claim that, therefore, brains need glucose.

Since "it's a quirk" is getting all the support and giving none, that's your winner.

See if that helps, and let us know if you need further explanation. We'll be here!

[ashpine17]

How can we tell the explanation for the phenomenon (first sentence) in this case is not the main conclusion? I really thought the second or last sentences were thr mc and i return to this question and choose the same

[ashpine17]

Can i also get some advice more generally like when i get questions like these wrong do i shelve main conclusion questions and move on to some other question type whar should i do? And when i am down to two choices like with here i was stuck between sentences 2 and 4 and felt i was really unsure and am taking it untimed what should i do?

[Adam Tyson]

If you're struggling with Main Point questions, ashpine17, you're probably also struggling with other questions that rely on your correctly identifying the conclusion, like weaken, strengthen, assumption, flaw, and justify the conclusion, to name a few. So, no, you shouldn't just shelve these. You should learn to identify premise indicators, conclusion indicators, and the basic rules for what makes a statement a premise or a conclusion (or both).

A conclusion is only a conclusion if the author tried to prove it with some of their other claims. The first sentence here is not supported by anything else in the stimulus, so it can't be the conclusion. A premise is only a premise if the author is using it to support some other claim in the stimulus.

And when you're stuck between two contenders, do as I suggested earlier in this thread and look at how those two claims relate to each other. How did the author use them? That's the key: the author's intentions. Did they mean to use the second sentence to support the 4th one, or vice versa? Which one makes more sense?

One big clue here is the phrase "to see this" at the beginning of the third sentence. That phrase introduces evidence - premises - to support the claim in the second sentence. It means "what I am about to say supports what I just said." That should really point the way to the correct answer here, and you'll often find similar clues in other questions like this one. Learn to read those clues and these questions will get much easier!

[p.arya]

I got this answer wrong because when evaluating the 1st and 2nd sentence, I thought of a premise as something that answers the question "Why?" posed by the conclusion, and that by saying "the reason", the 2nd sentence is a premise for the 1st.

Is thinking about premises as sentences answering the question "Why?" an effective strategy? Or is it not enough?

i would like to know if the first sentence is a conclusion or not, or if it is just context. If it's context, how do you differentiate background context from a conclusion?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi p.arya!

I support your strategy of thinking about premises as answering the why question. The conclusion presents a particular argument, and the premises unpack why that is the case.

To your second question, I read the first sentence as background context. To your final question, it's worth asking whether there is material presented in the stimulus that is supporting the sentence in question. If there is indeed material suggesting why that sentence is the case (i.e., premises supporting it), then you are dealing with a conclusion.