Consumer advocate:  The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to in...

SamA January 31, 2020

Hello @Shirnel,

I am not Mehran, but I think I can help!

You are on the right track by calling it a sub-conclusion, because it does support the primary conclusion.

"The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose."

Why?

"Because parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information."

I use this question-and-answer strategy to help me identify parts of the argument. The conclusion will leave you asking questions. The support (premises and sub-conclusions) will provide answers.

My only hesitation with calling the last sentence a sub-conclusion is that I'm not sure if it has a premise in support of it. It could be the statement that age range labeling has reduced injuries, therefore explicit labeling could eliminate injuries almost entirely. Stating that something "could" happen tends to be the language of a conclusion.

For this question, it doesn't matter as long as you understand that it supports the main conclusion.

If this question asked you about the last sentence instead of the first, the word sub-conclusion might not have appeared in the answer choices. It would probably say, "something in support of the conclusion." Usually, if the correct answer is "sub-conclusion," the statement in question will clearly follow the premise-conclusion format.

Shirnel January 31, 2020

Ok, I followed you on everything except this portion: If this question asked you about the last sentence instead of the first, the word sub-conclusion might not have appeared in the answer choices. It would probably say, "something in support of the conclusion." Usually, if the correct answer is "sub-conclusion," the statement in question will clearly follow the premise-conclusion format

Ravi January 31, 2020

@Shirnel, happy to help. I'm pretty sure what @SamA means is that if this question had been about the last sentence of the stimulus instead of the first sentence of the stimulus, "sub-conclusion" would not have been an answer choice because sub conclusions must BOTH provide support for another conclusion and be supported one or more premises. The sentence you're asking about is merely a premise. It isn't a sub-conclusion because it's not being supported by anything else in the argument; rather, all it's doing is providing support for the main conclusion, which is the first sentence of the stimulus.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!