The conclusion in each of the foregoing examples has been a self-contained sentence in the text of the argument. We come now to a rather different situation, and one which requires even more perceptive, interpretative skill.
Sometimes a conclusion is not expressed in one go, but is broken up, or repeated, or stated in more than one way, at different points in the text. (A useful word for this is
‘diffuse’, or ‘diffused’. A diffuse conclusion is one that is spread through the argument, rather than being one component.) Identifying a conclusion, in these circumstances, means gathering or summarising it.
For example, look at the next argument:
[5] We are taught from an early age that we should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth at all times and without question. But it is simplistic to pretend that truth-telling is always right and falsifying always wrong. Some people may tell the truth just to cause trouble;
others may decide not to tell the truth just to save someone else from distress or to protect them from danger. The morality or immorality of a deed depends on its consequences and the motives for doing C Parents should pay closer attention to
what their children have to say, and allow them to make more decisions for themselves.
Now look at the responses A–E. Which of them, if any, matches the meaning of the main conclusion of the passage? Obviously it is D: ‘Parents should attend more to what their children say, and allow them to make more decisions.’ We can safely select that as a close paraphrase of the actual conclusion.
What about the other options, the
‘distracters’? Even though you may feel confident in your choice, it is sound practice to reassure yourself that none of the others is as good or better – and why. It is easy to do this once you have carefully analysed the argument. Here are responses A–E again:
A Children are much cleverer than their parents give them credit for, and frequently display problem-solving skills that their parents do not possess.
B Parents naturally assume that their judgements and decisions are the right ones.
C Children don’t mind making mistakes to the extent that their parents generally do.
D Parents should attend more to what their children say, and allow them to make more decisions.
E A reduction in family tensions would result if parents listened more to what their children think.
A is not the main conclusion: it is a combination of R1 and IC. B looks like a conclusion partly because in the original text this claim begins with the word
‘consequently’. However, on a proper reading of the whole passage it becomes clear that it is only a target for the main argument, once again showing that indicator words do not tell the whole story but must be understood in the context of the text as a whole. C is an
• On its own the simple act of saying what is so, or what is not so, can be judged neither right nor wrong.
In such circumstances you can do one of two things. You can either choose the sentence which you think is the clearest expression of the conclusion. Or you can summarise the conclusion to which all three appear to be contributing. For example:
Without considering motives and
consequences, lying and truth-telling cannot be judged right or wrong.
You could be excused for thinking that [5] is a badly written argument, because its conclusion is not clearly stated once and for all. However, writers – good ones and bad ones – do this all the time, as a way of emphasising or reinforcing or clarifying the point they are making. In analysing such arguments you must be ready to summarise the conclusion and premises in your own words. The main purpose of analysing and standardising arguments is to simplify their meaning. When dealing with real texts by real authors you cannot always expect the job to be done for you!
• The primary purpose of argument analysis is to identify or summarise the conclusion.
• When identifying a conclusion, we should apply the principle of charity, by interpreting the text in the way which makes the best sense as an argument.
Summary
it. On its own the simple act of saying what is so, or what is not so, can be judged neither right nor wrong.
Activity
Which would you say was the main
conclusion here? Try to summarise it in your own words.
Commentary
What makes this a tricky argument to analyse cleanly is that the conclusion is spread out, rather than stated in a single sentence or phrase. It is clear enough that the first sentence is the target, setting up the standard principle that we should always tell the truth.
It is also clear that the rest of the passage is contesting the principle, by giving two counter-examples as reasons:
R1 Some people tell the truth to cause trouble.
R2 Some people do not tell the truth to save others from distress, etc.
Between them these reasons support three closely related claims, out of which it would be difficult to decide which was the
conclusion. Instead of forming a chain of reasoning, they all seem to be making roughly the same point, only in slightly different ways:
• It is simplistic to pretend that truth-telling is always right and falsifying always wrong.
• The morality or immorality of a deed depends on its consequences and the motives for doing it.
2 Train fares differ enormously, with the most expensive always applying when people have to commute to and from work, and when the trains are most crowded. Some call this a cynical and unfair policy because it exploits the fact that commuters have to travel then, and will pay whatever is charged and put up with the over-crowding because there is no alternative. But it is perfectly fair, as well as necessary, to do this. For one thing it is simply market forces at work.
For another it is the only way the system can function at a profit. During off-peak periods people are travelling from choice and would not travel at all if there were no cheap fares. But the cheap fares would not be economical for the transport companies unless they can be subsidised by high fares at peak times.
Which of the following best expresses the conclusion of the argument?
A It is fair and necessary to charge commuters the highest fares.
B Charging commuters peak rates is the only system that will work.
C It is cynical and unfair to charge commuters more than other travellers.
D Train companies exploit commuters because they have to travel at peak times.
E Cheap fares would not be economical without the subsidy of peak-time fares.
Consider each of the following arguments, then answer the multiple-choice question which follows. There is only one correct answer to each question.
As well as answering the question, justify your selection by saying why you think it is the right one, and why the others are wrong.
This will help you to improve your scores in multiple-choice tests, and your analysis skills generally.
1 When cities become congested with traffic, the usual solution is to make a charge for bringing a car into the centre. This works, but it is wrong to do it, because it discriminates in favour of those who can easily afford to pay.
The less well-off in society are penalised so that the rich can enjoy the luxury of clear streets. Therefore congestion charges everywhere should be abolished.
A system of rationing car use should be introduced instead, allowing each driver into the city just once or twice per week.
Then everyone benefits equally.
Which of the following expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
A The usual solution to congestion is charging to drive cars into the city centre.
B It is wrong to charge drivers because it discriminates in favour of the rich.
C Rationing car use should be brought in to replace congestion charges.
D Everyone would benefit from an abolition of congestion charges.
End-of-chapter assignments
Which of the following best expresses the conclusion of the argument?
A It is nonsense to say that we must be carnivores.
B Seeds, nuts, berries, leaves and roots are our natural diet.
C We do not have the teeth or stomachs of predatory animals.
D We are no more like wolves than we are like horses.
E Eating meat is a disgusting habit.
Answers and comments are on pages 313–14.
3 Meat eaters, in defence of their eating habits, often give the excuse that they (and we) do not have the teeth or the stomachs of natural herbivores, and therefore we must be carnivores. This is nonsense. We may not have the digestive equipment to eat raw grasses, but nor do we have the teeth and digestion systems of predators: we are as far removed from the wolf as we are from the horse. Seeds, nuts, berries, leaves and roots are the natural diet of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.
grounds (or evidence) for arguing that global warming is taking place. The phrase ‘must be’
helps us to see that the author is urging the reader to accept the claim. But even without this clue it is quite obvious that rising seas could not be the cause of global warming, whereas it makes good sense to offer rising seas as evidence of global warming. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is supportive.
What we learn from this is that the word
‘reason’ is ambiguous, depending upon whether it is a reason why (as in an explanation), or a reason for (as in an argument). This can make it quite hard on occasions to be sure whether a set of
sentences is expressing an argument or giving an explanation, especially if there are no indicator words (such as ‘because’, ‘therefore’,
‘for this reason’) to label the sentences.