A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. Universities, as guarantors of i...

Savannahrrobertson February 10, 2022

Do you have any tips on identifying Subsidiary Conclusions?

Each passage doesn't always contain a Subsidiary Conclusion - so my questions is How can we distinctively identify a SC in a passage, from other parts (i.e. premise, example, evidence, claim)? - For instance, the first sentence does not have a structural word indictor; I understand the statement is a general principle and the rest of the passage does support it, so does that automatically make it a conclusion? - At first I thought the first sentence was the conclusion, then after I read through the entire passage, I was confused on if the last sentence was the conclusion, and then eventually picked the latter as the conclusion because of all the premises built up to it. Then I could not decide if the first statement was a SC or a premise or something else. - When I completed this MC section I noticed that I tend to get nervous and not want to make a mistake of thinking a statement is a SC when its really something else or the actual conclusion. Any overall advice/tips? Thanks!

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

Already have an account? log in

Ross-Rinehart February 14, 2022

The important thing to remember when distinguishing between subsidiary and main conclusions is that the subsidiary conclusion must support the main conclusion. That means the subsidiary conclusion makes the main conclusion more likely to be true.

If you’re down to two conclusions, you need to figure out which one supports the other. To determine that, try using the “Why?” test. Let’s say you have two claims you think are the main conclusion: Potential Conclusion A and Potential Conclusion B. Ask yourself, “Why is the claim Potential Conclusion A true? Because Potential Conclusion B.” And turn it around ask, “Why is the Potential Conclusion B true? Because Potential Conclusion A.” One phrasing should make much more sense. The “Why” in the formulation that makes more sense is the main conclusion, and the “Because” is the support. Assuming it has support from other statements in the argument, the “Because” is a subsidiary conclusion. (If it doesn’t have support from other statements in the argument, it’s just a premise.)

In this case, we might get down to the first sentence (which uses the word “should,” and is therefore likely a conclusion) and the last sentence (which uses the word “clearly,” and is also probably a conclusion) as potential conclusions. So let’s apply the “Why” test …

“Why is the claim that a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members true? Because suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university’s obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.” That formulation should make some sense, especially when we add in the premises that universities that patent discovers “has a motive to suppress information” and that the universities “should encourage the free flow of ideas.” This makes sense, which shows that the first sentence is the main conclusion.

If you tried it the other way … “Why is the claim that suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university’s obligation to promote the free flow of ideas true? Because a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members” … that doesn’t make too much sense. Framed that way, it’s hard to see the relationship between the two ideas.

And to address your first ancillary question … The fact that a statement has no structural indicator words doesn’t automatically make it a principle or a conclusion. In fact, just as often, general principles are used as evidence. (For instance, in the argument, “Everyone who takes something that belongs to someone else without that person’s support is a thief. Harry took something that belonged to Joan, without Joan’s permission. Therefore, Harry is a thief.” The first sentence is a general principle, but it clearly supports the conclusion that Harry is a thief.)