Q17 - It is pointless to debate the truth

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
I'll be honest - I don't even know what to write here. This argument is confusing.

But, we can still rely on structural indicators. We start with an opinion (calling a debate pointless is an opinion) on the law of noncontradiction. It goes on to describe that law, and then to tell us what makes for a productive debate. We pivot to why a debate here don't meet that standard, and then have some type of conclusion about defending this law of noncontradiction.

Answer Anticipation:
The first statement and the last statement have support and conclusion indicators ("pointless"/an opinion for the first sentence; "so" for the last clause). These are our possible answers. Checking these two to see which supports which (using the "therefore" test is one way to do this), the last sentence provides support for the first. If a certain defense doesn't matter, then it's pointless to have that debate.

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Bingo.

(B) Premise/background. This is the definition of the law of noncontradiction.

(C) Premise. This is the requirement for a productive debate, which the argument uses to show this debate wouldn't be productive.

(D) Not stated.

(E) Premise.

Takeaway/Pattern: Luckily, we didn't get the subsidiary conclusion as a trap answer here! Look for those opening opinion statements, as it's easy to hide a conclusion there without a structural indicator.

#officialexplanation

[rbreville]

I read somewhere that Authors opinion is always the conclusion in ID Conclusion questions. Remembering this, was how I realized the first sentence contained the conclusion. In your opinion, do you suggest following this method?