Why this conclusion?

@AlyonaHess there is a difference between explaining something and supporting something. We say that the conclusion will not support anything else. Remember, however, that in every cause and effect argument the conclusion will be a proposed cause, i.e. the author's explanation for the observed effect. So it would definitely not be true to say that a conclusion cannot explain another sentence in the argument. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Thank you, Mehran. It's totally clear now.

Guys, I'm trying to navigate to this question to see the other posts made by other students. Please remind me the section this question belongs to and the number in that section. Thank you.

In the "view" tab i can only see the question and answers, but I don't see where this q/n from and what is its number in that section.

Although I understand the explanation, I answered the question incorrectly again (I did it before reading the explanation to check myself and the result of a month of studying).

@Alyona, the question is in Argument Structure Section, question 29.

@Mehran, I disagree with your explanation. In cause and effect relationship, the effect is the conclusion. Eg:- The road is wet because it was raining 10 min ago. cause -it was raining 10 min ago effect- the road is wet => conclusion is that the road is wet Am I wrong? Can you explain your stance please?

In that , the premise supporting conclusion 'the road is wet' is that 'it was raining 10 min ago'

(just another student on his LSAT journey) In that example 'the road is wet' is not the conclusion because it is granted as true. Someone could argue that your conclusion(cause) is incorrect because someone spilled water. Or I could say The road is wet (fact) not because someone spilled water (false alt cause) but because it rained ("correct" cause) So if you negate the conclusion, the road might still be wet. You could map this to the question in a similar way: The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago. (fact/effect) Yet this is not because the crime rate has increased (false alt cause), but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime. (correct cause) Additionally, you cant say : A->B so not A-> not B If the road is not wet or media doesnt cover crime more, you would have to scrap the whole thing, but you could freely negate the causes/conclusions here. Hope that helps in some way =]