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

shunhe on August 13, 2020

Hi @silviakirollos@hotmail.com,

Thanks for the question! So a subsidiary conclusion is basically a conclusion that is both a conclusion and a premise. In other words, it goes on to support the main conclusion, but is itself supported by other premises. So take the following argument:

It’s wet outside.
That means it must’ve rained.
If it rained, I don’t need to turn on my sprinklers.
Therefore, I can turn my sprinklers off.

Here, we know the first sentence “it’s wet outside” is just a premise, a fact/statement that’s asserted. The next sentence is “That means it must’ve rained,” and this is an intermediate/subsidiary conclusion. How do we know it must’ve rained? Well, because it’s wet outside! So the first premise supports this statement, which automatically makes it a conclusion of some kind. But it’s not the main conclusion here—the main conclusion is the last statement, that I can turn my sprinklers off. And we know I can turn my sprinklers off because it rained, and if it rained, I don’t need to turn them on. So the second statement goes on to support the last statement. And that’s the essence of a subsidiary conclusion.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.