The good news is that a subsidiary conclusion is still a type of premise, so you're close.
Specifically, (E) states that the phrase "provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated earlier in an argument." This is incorrect for two reasons.
First, the claim that this phrase is supporting (i.e. the overall conclusion) is not stated earlier in the argument. Instead, the conclusion is the very last sentence, which states that "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs."
Second, one could make the argument that the evidence the phrase introduces is not actually "necessary" support. Instead of the example of "herding ability," the passage could have given a different example and still could have come to the same conclusion. Moreover, the passage could have come to the same conclusion without an example here.
Therefore, (E) is factually incorrect.
When you are distinguishing between premises and subsidiary conclusions, it may be helpful to remember that both are supporting the overall conclusion but only one is also supported by other information in the passage. In other words, a subsidiary conclusion will have at least one premise that supports it directly, while a normal premise won't. In turn, both will support the overall conclusion.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
Sturnerg5February 13, 2020
Thank you for the response. I understand how you described it and will keep that in mind. Thank you again
SkylarFebruary 13, 2020
@Sturnerg5, glad that it makes sense. Please don't hesitate to reach out with any other questions and best of luck with your studies!
Raechel-BrodskyMay 18, 2020
Hi, I also chose E initially. I have tried to read this over and over again to see familiarize myself with structure and practice identifying premise, conclusion, and if necessary subsidiary conclusion relationships but am having trouble with identifying the difference and really scoping out what is the conclusion and what are the premise. Do you recommend any way that I may be able to better myself at this technique for the passages that are very wordy?
Raechel-BrodskyMay 22, 2020
Hi there! I was doing my missing premise drills in the S and N section of the program and am tied up on one of the set ups that states:
P: X-Y P: C: Y exists
The answer for the missing premise was that x exists which I thought did not necessarily have to be true as Y is necessary for Xs existence but not vice verse. I would ask on the flash card but it doesn't give me that option. Can someone help me?
Raechel-BrodskyMay 22, 2020
I thought that Y could exist without X..
Raechel-BrodskyMay 22, 2020
I'm sorry I didn't know where else to ask
SkylarMay 31, 2020
@Raechel-Brodsky, I'm happy to help!
The drill you mentioned is: P: X -> Y P: ? C: Y exists
Our first step should be to make any possible deductions we can. This gives us: P: X -> Y not Y -> not X P: ? C: Y exists
Now, what will allow us to connect our given premise to our conclusion? We need to know that X exists. This is because X is sufficient for Y. If we are told that X exists, we can conclude that the variable to its right also exists. Y is only necessary for X, so it is not enough to say anything about X or its existence. You seemed to have this reversed, which I believe caused your confusion.
Our final answer is then: P: X -> Y not Y -> not X P: X exists C: Y exists
Does that make sense? Best of luck with your continued studies!
