Critical Reasoning

Any course that teaches students how to write will serve them well later in life. Therefore, since some philosophy courses teach students how to write, any student will be served well later in life by taking any philosophy course.

As per the book the conclusion is "any student will be served well later in life by taking any philosophy course".

But I think this is just the sub conclusion and the main conclusion is

"Any course that teaches students how to write will serve them well later in life"

Can someone explain what am I missing?

Because the second sentence begins with "therefore", we know it is "thereforing" from the previous sentence, or the first sentence. That makes the first sentence evidence not conclusion.

In abstract:

"A. Therefore, since B, C."

So, "A" and "B" are both evidence while "C" is conclusion.

Thanks Testluv, the reason I got confused is because of the questions below.

It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common. Certain species of plankton, for example, generate a gas that is converted in the atmosphere into particles of sulfate. These particles cause water vapor to condense, thus forming clouds. Indeed, the formation of clouds over the ocean largely depends on the presence of these particles. More cloud cover means more sunlight is reflected, and so the Earth absorbs less heat. Thus plankton cause the surface of the Earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.

For this Q the the book says that the conclusion is "This characteristic [altering the environment] is actually quite common"

But i though the conclusion is "Thus plankton cause the surface of the Earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton"

It will great if you can explain why in this question the first is the conclusion and in the previous question second is the conclusion.

I am unable to really comprehend this.

Thanks,

Vineet

First, love the way you lead us to the Main Q. Eager to hear from Testluv on this.
I was trying to mould the second paragraph (Plankton ) in the format of the first (Philosophy) divided into three parts.

A - only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. (Evidence)
Any course that teaches students how to write will serve them well later in life
B - plankton (not the most evolved animals ) cause the surface of the Earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.
philosophy courses teach students how to write.
Notice the sentence is not in the negative form as implied in the case of Plankton not the most evolved.
C - this characteristic is actually quite common (among other animals not only the most evolved) .
any student will be served well later in life by taking any philosophy course

Hi Vineet,

The last sentence of the passage is a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion. An intermediate conclusion is a conclusion because it itself is supported by other premises. But it is intermediary because it is relied upon to support the main conclusion. The rhetorical function of all intermediate conclusions is, therefore, that of evidence.

An easy way to realize that the second sentence is the main conclusion is pattern recognition. If the author opens with something like "many economists claim" or "the traditional theory is", and then follows this up with a contrast keyword, nine times out of ten the author's motivation in arguing is to discredit what economists claim or to discredit the traditional theory. Therefore, the author's conclusion is just "the economist's claim is wrong".

Here, the first two sentences are:

"It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common."

As soon as we get to "however", we can anticipate that the author's conclusion is that that which is "well-known" is in fact incorrect.

What is "well-known"?...that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival.

"However" tells us that the author is arguing the negation of this. What's the negation of the"well-known" position?...that even species that are NOT highly evolved (ie, even simple) species can alter the environment in ways which aid their own survival. That's the author's conclusion, which again, we coud have anticipated as soon as we got to "however". And, sure enough, the rest of the argument is designed to support that conclusion.

If you are not sure which of two statements is the conclusion, another tactic you can apply is asking yourself "which idea supports the other?". The supporting idea is evidence while the supported idea is conclusion. Here: does the last sentence work to support the idea that even simple species can alter the environment in ways which aid their own survival?...Yes, it does....therefore, the last sentence must be evidence.

Test Luv,

This was an awesome reply. It makes so much more sense now.

Really appreciate the response.

Cheers,

Vineet

Hi Testluv, thanks for that helpful response.

Just one question here. The OA is that the argument is strong. However, cant the fact that the author uses just one example to say that altering the environment is 'very' common, serve to weaken the argument?

Thanks.

Testluv wrote:Hi Vineet,

The last sentence of the passage is a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion. An intermediate conclusion is a conclusion because it itself is supported by other premises. But it is intermediary because it is relied upon to support the main conclusion. The rhetorical function of all intermediate conclusions is, therefore, that of evidence.

An easy way to realize that the second sentence is the main conclusion is pattern recognition. If the author opens with something like "many economists claim" or "the traditional theory is", and then follows this up with a contrast keyword, nine times out of ten the author's motivation in arguing is to discredit what economists claim or to discredit the traditional theory. Therefore, the author's conclusion is just "the economist's claim is wrong".

Here, the first two sentences are:

"It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common."

As soon as we get to "however", we can anticipate that the author's conclusion is that that which is "well-known" is in fact incorrect.

What is "well-known"?...that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival.

"However" tells us that the author is arguing the negation of this. What's the negation of the"well-known" position?...that even species that are NOT highly evolved (ie, even simple) species can alter the environment in ways which aid their own survival. That's the author's conclusion, which again, we coud have anticipated as soon as we got to "however". And, sure enough, the rest of the argument is designed to support that conclusion.

If you are not sure which of two statements is the conclusion, another tactic you can apply is asking yourself "which idea supports the other?". The supporting idea is evidence while the supported idea is conclusion. Here: does the last sentence work to support the idea that even simple species can alter the environment in ways which aid their own survival?...Yes, it does....therefore, the last sentence must be evidence.