For Justify the conclusion and principle questions, I have difficulty figuring out what I am trying to justify. I can't put the full stimulus on the site but, For example, on preptest 54 Section 4 Question #9, the last sentence of the stimulus states "Thus, although it would not be wrong for the Jackson family to tell callers trying to reach Sara merely that they have dialed the wrong number, it would be laudable if the Jacksons passed Sara's correct number."
Here there are TWO clauses in the conclusion.
I originally assumed that I had to justify the second part that said "it would be laudable if the Jacksons passed Sara's correct number" assuming that it was the conclusion and that the first clause was just a premise.
It turns out I have to justify the first part of the clause too i.e. "although...", that ALL of it is the conclusion.
The LSAT test makers are playing on this and tricking us! How do I recognize the difference?
I'm basically asking do I justify, "it would be laudable if the jackson's passed Sarah's number" or "Thus, although it would not be wrong for the Jackson family to tell callers trying to reach Sara merely that they have dialed the wrong number, it would be laudable if the Jacksons passed Sara's correct number."
I also noticed the pattern where the last sentence follows the format: "So if we are to teach calculus, we must make sure they understand derivatives."
Am I justifying "we must make sure they understand derivatives, or "So if we are to teach calculus, we must make sure they understand derivatives?
Sigh, somebody HELP me PLEASE! [color=#FF00BF]