Q6 - As symbols for the freedom of the wilderness

[bernard.agrest]

Ok, so this is a Main point/conclusion question.

Stimulus: The bald eagles are a symbol for freedom, and thus they have a unique capability to inspire people and foster in them a sympathetic attitude toward the needs of other threatened species. Clearly, without that sympathy and the political will it comes with, other less known species needs will not be met. Therefore, we need to start with bald eagles, before we can help other species.

Ok, So bald eagles are the important character in play. Why? Because their symbolism can gather political will and thus help save other species.

A) No, we want to USE bald eagles to help other species.
B) Yes, this is what we pre phrased.
C) No, this doesn't even talk about the main character, the freedom eagle!
D) Again, it's missing the freedom eagle.
E) We don't even know that! For example, Perry the Platypus is pretty dam inspiring. The relative power of inspiration that animals give to people is not discussed.

[asafezrati]

Can anyone explain the relationship of the second and third sentences? Im having difficulty in understanding which is the premise and which is the conclusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's start from the Conclusion and work our way backwards, so you can hear how this conversation might go:

CONC - "We wanna save a lot of different endangered species, but we're gonna have to start with the bald eagle."

[other people in the audience - "What? Why does it HAVE to be the bald eagle we start with?]

"Because, [PREMISES] the bald eagle is the ONLY endangered species that makes people think of freedom, and associating freedom with wild, endangered species makes people more likely to want to help save the endangered species. The only way you're gonna get help for all these other endangered species is to first get the public and the political leaders on board with the bald eagle."

I think you're struggling to see the connection between the 2nd and 3rd sentence, because the real connection is between the 1st and 2nd sentence.

Those are the premises, so they combine with each other to get the conclusion's inference.

What can you infer by combining these two claims?
1. If you don't inspire people/politicians, then they won't help save a bunch of endangered species
2. Only the bald eagle can inspire people/politicians


Infer: Saving a bunch of endangered species is gonna require the bald eagle's help!

Hope this helps.

p.s. to the original poster, GREAT post! ... sorry no one saw your work earlier and validated its conversational brain-rephrasing awesomeness!

[JohnK613]

I had the same problem as asafezrati did, I thought the conclusion was the second sentence because isn't "clearly" a conclusion indicator? I'm looking at it, and in the third sentence the "can only" is very strong and now makes me understand it as the conclusion, but when reading through it I immediately thought it went Premise --> Conclusion --> Premise.