Exactly how many of the artifacts are there any one of which could be first?

on September 15, 2017

Main point Question 2

When I first read this question I thought "it is probably within the reach of human technology to make the climate of mars inhabitable" was the conclusion. What makes this not the conclusion and just a premise?

4 Replies

Savanna on September 25, 2017

I am struggling at how to identify the conclusion for all of these "main point" question stems. Especially if there is no conclusion words. what do i do?

on September 25, 2017

How I try to figure out the conclusion is by asking 'why?'. I have noticed that the premises provide an answer to the 'why?' whereas the conclusion does not. For example, if we ask, "why are the research efforts now justified", we can find the answer in the premise given. However, there is no statement or question in the passage the answer to which is "because Research efforts now are justified..." and if there was, then that statement would likely be the main point. Premise supports the conclusion. So, we have to find out what is supporting what. The supporting statement is the premise and that which is supported is the conclusion and in this passage, everything is supporting "Research efforts now are justified...."

Timothy on September 26, 2017

I also find it very confusing trying to understand which one the conclusion, I understand from the comment above that you said premises provide an answer to the why? whereas the conclusion does not.

Looking at this passage, it felt like the "research efforts now are justified is supporting the comments above as to why it is nearly within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable. For example, if i made a comment about producing a special meal that reverses calories then i further comment that research efforts are now justified, it sounds like i am backing up what I am saying rather than the other way wrong. I don't know if this makes much sense or not but i am struggling to understand this section.

Timothy on September 26, 2017

Also going back to your comment made earlier: 'I have noticed that the premises provide an answer to the 'why?' whereas the conclusion does not."

On Question 3 (Zoo Director) the conclusion was "cutting City Zoo's funding in half, is false economy.
Why is it false economy? well because it equals less than 1 percent of the city's deficit.

I thought the main point of the argument is about the impact of this whole thing on the zoo since its coming from the zoo keeper. The zoo keeper will be concerned about his job because the zoo will close down because of the funding so one would expect the main point would be about the zoo closing down if the budget is cut.

Please is there another way or system that best help with students like myself struggling to figure out the main point?