Q23 - Each of the many different human hormones

[dre.wat.son987]

I came across this problem in the homework exercises and I am confused as to why the second sentence ("The reason for this is probably...") is the conclusion of the argument.

I used the therefore test and it didn't yield any concrete results for me.

Please Help!

[aileenann]

I came across this problem in the homework exercises and I am confused as to why the second sentence ("The reason for this is probably...") is the conclusion of the argument.

I used the therefore test and it didn't yield any concrete results for me.


Thanks for your question!

The therefore test comes in especially handy when there are two statements each of which seems as though it might be the conclusion. Here I think the two likely candidates are:

"The reason for this is probably that although most human cells ..." (so identifying a cause/explanation)

and

"Thus, if blood glucose falls too low, brain cells will rapidly starve..." (some kind of prediction about how things will happen.

I would argue that the therefore test works here. It makes most sense to say, such and such will happen, which means that the likely explanation is such and such, rather than saying it the other way around. Or, alternately another way to think about it is that the more certain prediction about what will happen gives rise to the more abstract hypothesis.

If this is still confusing, please repost and let me know specifically why you don't think the Therefore test works.

Thanks!

[qtcherrysyrup]

What's the "Therefore" test?
I got this question right but would still like to see what the "therefore" test is and how I can use it to identify a conclusion in a confusing paragraph like this.
Thanks!

[tamwaiman]

Hi qtcherrysyrup

I guess it is to pick up the conclusion-like out first and then add "therefore" to each sentence to see which one is most supported by the others.

[aileenann]

Hi Tamwaiman - thanks for chiming in.

I'll just add a little more detail. We use the therefore test when we have two candidate portions of an argument that might be the conclusion. For example, let's say I have sentence A and sentence B, and I am not sure which one really is the ultimate claim. I can just try it out empirically.

Does "A therefore B" have a nice ring to it (that is, make logical sense)? Then B is probably the ultimate conclusion. On the other hand if it sounds backwards, you should try out "B therefore A" - does that sounds more sensible? If so, then A is the conclusion.

[cdjmarmon]

I chose B originally then changed my answer to A because I saw B as having the conclusion and the evidence for the conclsuion all in one answer. Yet, the question just wants the conclusion.

Which leads to another issue. I dont see how the second sentence is the conclusion when it is being used to explain the fact "Each of many different human hormones can by itself raise the concentration of glucose in the blood."

For instance, If i said, "Each of many different human hormones can by itself raise the concentration of glucose in the blood."

Then you asked, Why?

I would say, "The reason for this is probably a metabolic quirk of the brain." Then continue on about the brain needing glucose etc etc etc

Therefore, I dont see how, "The reason for this is probably a metabolic quirk of the brain," is the conclusion.

[wguwguwgu]

I chose B originally then changed my answer to A because I saw B as having the conclusion and the evidence for the conclsuion all in one answer. Yet, the question just wants the conclusion.

Which leads to another issue. I dont see how the second sentence is the conclusion when it is being used to explain the fact "Each of many different human hormones can by itself raise the concentration of glucose in the blood."

For instance, If i said, "Each of many different human hormones can by itself raise the concentration of glucose in the blood."

Then you asked, Why?

I would say, "The reason for this is probably a metabolic quirk of the brain." Then continue on about the brain needing glucose etc etc etc

Therefore, I dont see how, "The reason for this is probably a metabolic quirk of the brain," is the conclusion.

Same question---I picked B but also wonder why exactly A is wrong. I feel that both sentences can be regarded as the main conclusion here?

[tzyc]

Same question here...I end up choosing (A) between (A) and (B)...

Is it because:
The premise and the intermidiate conclusion both talk about brain cells, so the conclusion would be about brain cells too?
The conclusion says "propbably", and the premise says "To see this". It seems the premise tries to prove the conclusion is correct. Is this thinking on the right track...??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The structure of this argument is very common on the LSAT. Take a look at:

PT9, S2, Q5: Advertisement: Northwoods brand

You'll see this structure all over the LSAT once you start to look for it.

Evidence: Observed Phenomenon
Conclusion: Explanation

In this argument the first sentence sets out something witnessed in the world. The second sentence explains, how or why it happens. Everything eles is further evidence for that explanation. So the third sentence is a premise and the last sentence is an intermediate conclusion.

Answer choice (A) is simply the observed phenomenon - not the explanation, and so does not represent what this argument is trying to establish.

Hope that helps!

[sumukh09]

Hi Matt,

Are observed phenomenon's never conclusions? How do we distinguish between something that's an observed phenomenon vs. something that's a conclusion? For this question I chose A for the same reason as wguwguwgu, the argument proceeds in a way that helps explain the phenomenon cited in the first sentence; what gave this away was the second sentence which began with "the reason for this" as if it were supporting the claim made in the first sentence. So I guess my question is how can we distinguish between observed phenomenon's and conclusions when support is being given for the phenomenon?

[einuoa]

I have the same question as the poster above, if any LSAT geek would clarify, that would be awesome.

[maryadkins]

Let's just boil this argument down to it's core. The argument is:

1. each of our hormones can raise our blood glucose levels

2. this is probably because of a metabolic quirk in our brain.

3. for example, even though most of our cells produce energy from fat, our brain only can from glucose.

4. so when glucose levels fall, our brains starve.

What is the POINT of this overall argument?

Not 1, because 2-4 are not written in a way that they're supposed to support 1. Do you see that? That wouldn't be an argument. 1, in other words, doesn't read like a conclusion. Same with 3. That leaves 2 ("is probably" is a red flag that it could be a conclusion) and 4 ("therefore" is also a red flag.)

So does it make more sense for 4 to support 2, or for 2 to support 4? (This is what Aileen was describing with "the therefore test.")

Does it make more sense to say:

1. our brains starve without glucose --> the reason all of our hormones can raise glucose levels is probably a quirk of our brain

OR:

2. the reason all of our hormones can raise glucose levels is probably a quirk of our brain --> our brains starve without glucose

1 makes more sense. 1 is the answer (B).

As for your question:

So I guess my question is how can we distinguish between observed phenomenon's and conclusions when support is being given for the phenomenon?

If I say:

It's raining. The reason is probably global warming.

What's the conclusion?

The second part:

it's raining --> the reason is probably global warming

The first part is just the phenomenon that needs explaining. There isn't an argument in it. It's just a fact. Make sense?

[sumukh09]

Hm, yeah that makes sense. Also, I'm just looking at this question again, and now there's actually three answers that jump out as contenders - that's probably not a good thing.

A, B, and D all seem like good answers to me.

Needless to say, this is probably one of the more tougher "main conclusion" questions I've come across. I would say we can eliminate D on the grounds that it's an intermediate conclusion (obviously) that helps substantiate the explanation - or the main conclusion of the argument - in the stimulus.

Do I have this right? Thanks

[maryadkins]

Sorry about that!

Let me do a run down of the answers since it appears we haven't done that yet.

But as a general matter, on main conclusion questions, you're much better off looking for the conclusion before you even read the answer choices, finding it, THEN reading the answers to seek out a match. This way, you won't get swayed by tempting wrong answers.

(A) is background.

(B) is right.

(C) is a premise.

(D) is the intermediate conclusion for the reasons I discussed in my last post.

(E) isn't stated, and the answer to a main conclusion question will always, always, always be stated.

[Mab6q]

i know it's not always good to go into LR questions with general rules, but it's true that the conclusion on Main Conclusion questions are usually not the last sentence or clause. Can anyone remember a question that had the conclusion actually come last on these questions?

[tommywallach]

There have probably been a couple, but yes, they shy away from it, because many people just EXPECT an argument to have a conclusion at the end.

-t