The government has spent heavily to clean groundwater contaminated by toxic chemical spills. Yet not even one spill ...
jgoldmanMay 29, 2019
Subsidiary Conclusion?
The question stem states "the proposal" about how the government's budget should be redirected plays which of the following roles in the argument"?
Why is this not a subsidiary conclusion? It makes sense if you say "most of the government's budget should be redirected to preventing spills BECAUSE it makes little sense that the entire annual budget for prevention is less than the amount spent annually on one typical cleanup site"
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Great question. When you say that it makes sense if you say, "Most of the government's budget should be redirected to preventing spills because it makes little sense that the entire annual budget for prevention is less than the amount spent annually on one typical cleanup site," you're absolutely right. The clause after "because" is the subsidiary conclusion because it's supporting the clause before "because." Remember, the subsidiary conclusion is just another term for the intermediate conclusion or major premise. This means that it's a conclusion of another premise that is used to support another conclusion.
The proposal about how the government's budget should be redirected is the claim that the whole stimulus is designed to support, so it's the main conclusion, and this is why (C) is the correct answer.
Does that make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
g_cirelliFebruary 18, 2020
Why isn't the answer D? I was stuck between C and D, but just want to make sure I understand why the answer couldn't be D. Thank you!!!
