Psychologist: The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously. However much society may have cha...
BennyB33June 26, 2022
Can someone explain the correct answer please?
I was on edge about the last sentence being the conclusion but I felt the first sentence was context or a type of illustration, maybe even background to build the argument. Thinking more, could we say the last sentence is a sub-conclusion because of the conditional language? I noted from an office hour video where someone said if you are not sure then read the two statements together and it sounded to me as if the last sentence was receiving support not giving any. Can someone clarify, please? Help me understand
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I agree that the final sentence is a subsidiary conclusion. I think the idea that positively reinforcing good things can only happen if the recipient knows who is grateful (the final sentence) is supported by the middle sentence, that psychology is driven primarily by personal interaction.
This is a style of argument that is not uncommon, where the author will make a bold (and often general) claim, and then structure the rest of the passage to support that claim. While you are right that the last sentence is receiving support, that is from the middle sentence, not the first.
Let's try to put the first and last sentences together and see which makes sense.
Positively reinforcing good things can only happen if the recipient knows who is grateful, therefore the obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously.
The obligation to express gratitude cannot be fulfilled anonymously, therefore the social function of positive reinforcement can only be served if the recipient knows who is grateful.
While I could see both of these arguments, I think that the first one is much more convincing. The latter argument seems circular, and while the former seems to be close to valid.
