Q25 - Farmer: In the long run

[aileenann]

The portion of the argument the question asks about is a premise _ and in particular a premise that *supports* the farmer’s argument. This argument is fairly simple, so I wouldn’t anticipate a tougher or more articulate description of the role than that, and it might be a waste of time to try to forecast one. Let’s dive into our answers.

(A) This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, it’s not a conclusion at all. Second, this argument has no intermediate conclusion, so it really does have only the one conclusion.
(B) Yes it’s a claim _ and yes they give us another fact from which this fact follows _ bingo! Still, if we’re not pressed for time, let’s check out the other answer choices.
(C) Worse than (A)!
(D) Also bad _ there is no intermediate conclusion.
(E) This conclusion in this argument is not of a causal nature. Moreover, the conclusion does not attempt to explain this fact.

This is an interesting example of a question that can only get hard if you don’t take a few seconds at the beginning to digest the main argument. The argument itself was simple, and the part of the argument we were supposed to describe was simply a claim. Don’t let these higher numbered problems intimidate you!


#officialexplanation

[gyfirefire]

hi,

I respecfully disagree with the comment that "this argument has no intermediate conclusion". I believe the sentence in question is the intermediate conclusion. The 1st sentence is the main conclusion, and the 1st half of the second sentence is the support for the intermediate conclusion. Although in (B) I am nervous about "only conclusion", other choices are way off.

So my question is how we should understand "only conclusion". It looks like it means "the only main conclusion". I am not sure, so please help.

Thank you very much.

[aileenann]

Hi Gyfirefire,

I really appreciate your post. You are certainly free to disagree, and you've made me rethink my position. I agree that if you treat the second sentence's two portions distinctly, as you well should, the first half does provide support for the second half. In that sense, it does look like an intermediate solution, drawing its support for the argument.

However, I think you could also read it as stating another fact, where you take the whole sentence together as explaining the causal relationship. This could be a right answer on a question that is asking us to identify the intermediate conclusion, but I don't think it's quite opinionated/subjective/normative enough to my mind to really be an intermediate conclusion.

I know I'm flip-flopping a bit here! Sorry, but I am not entirely happy calling it an intermediate conclusion either, so I am thinking out loud as to why that is.

You've also got some support for your intermediate conclusion label in the correct answer choice - (B) uses "claim" to describe that second portion of the second sentence, which isn't the same as "premise" or "evidence". I might try to argue in some cases that "claim" is appropriate even when applied to a premise, but it's certainly more appropriate applied to an intermediate conclusion.

As far as "only conclusion" - I feel more comfortable with this language than you do precisely because I don't think that anything in sentence two is all that conclusion-like. But if you really want to use the language of "conclusion" for it, then I think you should read "only conclusion" with that "main" inserted in. This is not the only instance where they ask for the conclusion of an argument, or label something the conclusion, even though there is also an intermediate conclusion present.

The safer bet here, though, as always is to work through process of elimination.

Thanks so much for calling this to my attention! Please do follow up if you have other thoughts or responses.

[farhadshekib]

The portion of the argument the question asks about is a premise _ and in particular a premise that *supports* the farmer’s argument. This argument is fairly simple, so I wouldn’t anticipate a tougher or more articulate description of the role than that, and it might be a waste of time to try to forecast one. Let’s dive into our answers.

(A) This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, it’s not a conclusion at all. Second, this argument has no intermediate conclusion, so it really does have only the one conclusion.
(B) Yes it’s a claim _ and yes they give us another fact from which this fact follows _ bingo! Still, if we’re not pressed for time, let’s check out the other answer choices.
(C) Worse than (A)!
(D) Also bad _ there is no intermediate conclusion.
(E) This conclusion in this argument is not of a causal nature. Moreover, the conclusion does not attempt to explain this fact.

This is an interesting example of a question that can only get hard if you don’t take a few seconds at the beginning to digest the main argument. The argument itself was simple, and the part of the argument we were supposed to describe was simply a claim. Don’t let these higher numbered problems intimidate you!

Hey, I got B via the process of elimination. However, I am not sure where the "causal explanation" came from?

Is it referring to insecticide causing greater resistance in insects?

Thanks!

[jennifer]

what is the causal explantion is this stimulus, and what does this typically mean, I see it alot. thank you

[sumukh09]

The causal explanation is that insecticide use causes an increasing resistance to insecticide use in insects.

[AseemN739]

It's because the premise was stating a fact and not making a claim that it's not an intermediate conclusion, right? So, if the premise had been,
"Because insects' resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use, farmers will have to use greater and greater amounts of costly insecticides to control insect pests" then would it have been a claim, therefore, an intermediate conclusion?

[LeonC641]

Hi,
I am having trouble with the issue of whether the last clause is a subsidiary conclusion or a statement of fact. Let's look at the stimulus in this way: supposing that the Farmer does not state "the only conclusion" at all and that the stimulus only contains: "Because insects' resistance....., farmers have to use....to control insect pests." In this case, it seems to me that the last clause looks like a conclusion.

I thought of one possible way that I could get my head around it. But I am not sure whether it is logical. In my hypothetical stimulus, the Farmer only asserts a causal statement without any premise to support this causal statement. Thus, in other words, a causal statement per se is neither a premise or a conclusion unless the causal statement is being used to support or is being supported by other statements.

Does my exploring above make sense? Sorry for the long post; I am kind of thinking out loud here. Thanks very much for your time!

Leon