On Main Conclusion questions, the goal's in the name.
We'll read an argument, then, we'll be asked to find its central conclusion—what the author is trying to convince us about.
These questions always deal with arguments and are always 100% predictable. Eliminating answer choices is a breeze.
It all comes down distinguishing between conclusions, evidence, and other information.
They're often phrased something like this:
- Which one of the following most accurately expresses the argument's conclusion?
- The conclusion drawn in Steve's argument is that
Let's work through some examples.
Examples
PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 1
Economist: Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will survive. But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole. Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees, which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.
Let's break down this argument piece by piece.
The first sentence provides background information. Rephrased, businesses try to increase productivity to make a profits for owners and keep the business running.
Then our economist flips the script, as if to say, "Despite the fact I just gave you, not all attempts to up productivity are good for business."
They finish up with a justification. Sometimes our productivity initiatives reduce headcount, hurting morale.
So which bit is their conclusion? The second sentence. It claims, in spite of the fact it gives us at first, that sometimes seeking productivity has negative effects. What kind of negative effects, you might ask? Ones like those mentioned in the last sentence. The structure goes: context, conclusion, support.
PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 10
Let's try another.
Double-blind techniques should be used whenever possible in scientific experiments. They help prevent the misinterpretations that often arise due to expectations and opinions that scientists already hold, and clearly scientists should be extremely diligent in trying to avoid such misinterpretations.
Our passage starts with a claim, and a strong claim at that. We should use double-blind techniques whenever possible.
Then we get some support. Double-blind studies help prevent misinterpretations from pre-existing knowledge and bias.
But the last clause throws in a slight curveball. Hope you caught it. "...clearly scientists should be extremely diligent in trying to avoid [the aforementioned misinterpretations]." This is actually a conclusion, but it's an intermediate conclusion.
When you get a scenario like this, ask yourself which conclusion supports the other.
Does it make more sense to say...
Double-blind techniques should be used whenever possible. Therefore scientists should be extremely diligent in trying to avoid misinterpretation.
...or...
Scientists should be extremely diligent in trying to avoid misinterpretation. Therefore double-blind techniques should be used whenever possible.
Here's hoping you picked the latter.
Even though the author makes two claims here, one clearly supports the other.
---
Next up, Must Be questions.