Conclusion/Premise by Conjunctions
Conjunctions - words such as but, because, therefore and moreover - are a great tool for
identifying the argument's components:
Conclusion conjunctions help us identify the conclusion, which normally appears AFTER
such words. This group includes therefore, thus, consequently, hence, so, which means that, it
follows that, etc. For example:
Structure: [premise]. Therefore, [conclusion].
Example: Jane is hungry. Therefore, she will be making herself a sandwich soon.
Reason conjunctions also help identify the conclusion, which appears BEFORE these
words. Reason words include words such as because, since, and as.
Structure: [conclusion] because [premise].
Example: Jane will be making herself a sandwich soon because she is hungry.
Naturally, this means reason conjunctions can also help us identify the premise, which will
appear immediately AFTER these words, as can be seen in the example above.
Critical Reasoning: Argument Structure - Identifying the Conclusion by
Recommendation
One clue which can help you identify a conclusion is that conclusions are often
recommendations made by the argument's author:
Examples (the premise is in green, the conclusion in blue):
1. The company lost money last year. The company should do so and so.
2. The company lost money last year. It is recommended that the company do so and so.
Critical Reasoning: Argument Structure - Identifying the Premise by Findings
One sign by which a premise can be identified is the use of phrases relating
to scientific research or the findings of such research, such as "A study conducted in 1999
showed that...", or "A researcher studying X found that..."
Example (the premise is in green, the conclusion in blue):
A recent study has found that satisfied employees are more productive. Next year, company
X plans to invest $20,000 in increasing employee satisfaction in order to increase
productivity and therefore sales.
Critical Reasoning: Argument Structure - Identifying the Conclusion by Words
which are not Conjunctions
Not all Critical Reasoning arguments provide a clear-cut clue to identifying the conclusion,
such as a conjunction (e.g., therefore), a recommendation (e.g., The company should do so
and so) or conclusion words (e.g., The researcher concluded that).
In the following example, we do not have any tangible clue that will help us identify the
conclusion:
Example:
Unfair employment conditions in sweatshops abuse employees' rights. However, if
companies are reluctant to employ personnel in such conditions, they will suffer much greater
production costs than companies that agree to these conditions.
This does not mean we are helpless and that the conclusion cannot be identified. It simply
means that the process of identifying the conclusion relies on common sense rather than
spotting certain words (such as conjunctions). In fact, the clues we've learned so far are just
there to reaffirm what we understand using our logic and common sense.
Let's give it a shot. Look at the argument above. Which group of words is more likely to help
us tell the conclusion apart?
Critical Reasoning: Work Order