Since there is no survival value in an animal's having an organ that is able to function when all its other organs ha...

Lauren_ on October 4, 2019

Example 2

Hello, While I was working on question 2, I had believed that the argument was it was within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars habitable. What makes research efforts are now justified the argument? Are there clear indicators to differentiate evidence and arguments?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Skylar on October 4, 2019

@Lauren_ Happy to help! Let's take a look.

This can be tricky. The statement that "it is probably within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable" is a critical part of the argument, but it is a premise, not the overall conclusion. The conclusion of this argument is identified in option (D), which states "research efforts aimed at discovering how to change the climate of Mars are now justified."

You should note how this latter statement goes beyond the information in the former statement. Oftentimes this can be a helpful technique in identifying the conclusion of an argument - first break apart the given information and then ask yourself "which parts support which other parts?" In this case, the idea that it is possible to alter the climate of Mars and the idea that research efforts are justified if there is even a chance at making another planet inevitable both ultimately work to support the idea that research on climate-alteration of Mars is justified. Since these ideas support a larger idea that goes beyond those given in the earlier statements, they are premises while the larger idea is the conclusion

Does this make sense? Please let us know if you'd like additional clarification.