Testing a CR concept

Your first indicator is the word furthermore. THat indicates it is an additional premise.

Conclusion is that city should release the restrictions.
Why?
- 2)because city's economy is currently under slump n and also because
-city should not place restrictions on forms of speech. Since advertising is one, it reasserts our conclusion.

I am not with vinesh

Conclusion: City shall lift restrictions on both X and Y
Premise : because city has Z

X and Y together shall be lifted is the conclusion.

Hi,
No doubt "Furthermore" is an indicator but i did not want to depend on Indicators. Even CR bible says that best method to find the conclusion is by understanding the argument.

In this case argument is saying that because city's economy is in slump, govt should release restrictions on advertising. (This is clear to everyone here). Problem is with 3). Though i feel the same as HSPA that 3) seems to be conclusion because we can say that "because 1) is there, 3) should be there", BUT according to CR bible 3) is premise. VINEESH can you please elaborate why you feel that 3) is premise.

I got it !!!!!

After typing my reply i was contemplating over the question and realized why 3) is premise.

The key is that Premise should directly aid Conclusion. In case 3) is conclusion then 2) has to be premise for 3). But 2) does NOT aid 3). We cannot say since city's economy is in slump, city should not place restrictions on forms of speech. This does not make sense.

Now consider 3) to be premise and 1) to conclusion. Take is like this that 3) is a fact. Argument says because of the fact that city should not place restrictions on forms of speech, city should release restrictions on outdoor advertising.

Do let me know in case anyone has doubt(this seems funny because this was my doubt, anyways this is the beauty of discussion that i was able to resolve my doubt on my own )

vikram4689 wrote:I got it !!!!!

After typing my reply i was contemplating over the question and realized why 3) is premise.

The key is that Premise should directly aid Conclusion. In case 3) is conclusion then 2) has to be premise for 3). But 2) does NOT aid 3). We cannot say since city's economy is in slump, city should not place restrictions on forms of speech. This does not make sense.

Now consider 3) to be premise and 1) to conclusion. Take is like this that 3) is a fact. Argument says because of the fact that city should not place restrictions on forms of speech, city should release restrictions on outdoor advertising.

Do let me know in case anyone has doubt(this seems funny because this was my doubt, anyways this is the beauty of discussion that i was able to resolve my doubt on my own )

Should indicates obligation not fact

Accepted, i mentioned to make it more clear. Anyways refer to following lines that would help to understand better:

You ought to obey your teachers because they are responsible for your academics. Furthermore you should obey your elders.

Here though should is used in "Furthermore you should obey your elders." It acts as an additional premise for the conclusion "You ought to obey your teachers".

Hope it is clear, if not do let me know and if yes even then let me know, it will make me happy.