Free Courses › Logical Reasoning

Read arguments like a lawyer · Lesson 2 of 14

Argument parts: conclusion, premises, indicator words

After this lesson, you can locate an argument's conclusion and evidence, spot the indicator words that flag each, and strip out filler that isn't part of the core argument.

9 min video, plus notes and 1 practice question below

This lesson is the first 9 minutes and 20 seconds of the video. The rest applies these parts to main point questions, worth watching once you reach the question-type lessons.

In this lesson

• Ask "what's the point?" first, before worrying about the question type, since every logical reasoning question depends on finding the conclusion
• Spot evidence indicator words like "because" and phrases like "the reason X is that": whatever follows one is the evidence, and whatever's left is the conclusion
• Handle arguments with no indicator words by testing which part supports the other, since some stimuli give you only evidence indicators, only conclusion indicators, or neither
• Recognize filler bounded by commas, a counter-premise admitting a weakness, and cut it out to see the argument's real 2-part structure

Start with one question: what's the point?

Before you can answer a main point question, a main conclusion question, or a complete-the-argument question, you need to answer the same underlying question: what's the conclusion here? These 3 question types are close cousins asking for the same thing in different words, even though complete-the-argument looks different on the page since it fills in a blank instead of naming a sentence outright. Figuring out the conclusion is also a skill that carries straight into reading comprehension, where you're hunting for the main idea of a whole passage instead of one short argument.

This kind of question tends to show up early in a course because it's more of an on-ramp than a roadblock, but that doesn't mean you can skip it. Every tougher question type you'll meet later, necessary assumption, flaw, strengthen, still starts with the same first move: find the conclusion, find the evidence, and figure out which one supports the other. Get sloppy here and the harder questions get harder for the wrong reason.

Indicator words point the way, when they show up

Some arguments hand you the structure for free. The word "because" is an evidence indicator: whatever comes right after it is the evidence, and whatever's left in the stimulus is the conclusion. A longer phrase like "the reason X happens is that Y" works the same way. Everything after "is that" is the evidence explaining why X happens, and X itself is the conclusion.

Don't count on indicator words showing up every time, though. A stimulus might give you only an evidence indicator, only a conclusion indicator, or neither. When neither shows up, slow down and ask which part of the stimulus is doing the supporting and which part is being supported. That relationship, not the vocabulary, is what you're actually looking for, and it's worth the extra few seconds it takes to work it out.

Work it on a short argument, then a longer one

Take a simple case: "He didn't go to law school because he got too obsessed with the LSAT." There's an evidence indicator, "because", but no conclusion indicator. Whatever follows "because", getting obsessed with the LSAT, is the evidence. Whatever's left, he didn't go to law school, is the conclusion. That's the whole process on a short stimulus.

Now a longer one: "The reason people's allergies worsen when they move to Cincinnati is that the pollen count in Cincinnati is higher than almost anywhere else in the surrounding area." Strip out the extra wording and you're left with "the reason is that [the pollen count is higher]," so everything after "is that" is the evidence. The conclusion is the part before it: people's allergies worsen when they move to Cincinnati. A longer stimulus doesn't need a longer process. The same because-and-conclusion structure sits underneath it, just dressed up in more words.

Strip out filler that isn't evidence or the conclusion

Not every sentence in a stimulus is evidence or the conclusion. Take this one: "Fracking should be allowed because, although it does involve some environmental risk, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and there's much greater harm to the environment from foreign oil drilling than from fracking." The conclusion sits right before "because": fracking should be allowed. Everything after "because" is evidence, 2 reasons that together support letting fracking continue.

But the phrase bounded by commas, "although it does involve some environmental risk", isn't the conclusion and isn't the core evidence either. It's a counter-premise, a spot where the author admits a weakness before arguing past it. Cut it out and the argument still flows: fracking should be allowed because it reduces dependence on foreign oil, and foreign oil drilling causes more harm than fracking does. That phrase isn't nothing, it makes the argument read as more balanced, but it isn't core to the structure either.

Chopping out that kind of filler, whether by crossing it out on paper or flagging it on screen, helps you see the argument's real 2-part skeleton: evidence, then conclusion. Once you can do that on demand, on a short stimulus and a long one, you're ready for question types that ask you to do something with that skeleton instead of just naming it.

The short version

• Next practice set, before you read the question stem, cover it and ask yourself what's the point. If you can't answer in one sentence, you don't have the conclusion yet.
• Next practice set, before you read any question stem, underline the conclusion and bracket the counter-premise filler. If you can't do it in 20 seconds, reread for the indicator words first.
• Any time you spot a phrase boxed in by commas that admits a weakness, cross it out mentally before you touch the answer choices. Trying to fit that filler into evidence or conclusion is what stalls you.

Mark lesson 2 complete