Explain

Hello @Audrey-Swope, I use a question-and-answer strategy to help me identify conclusions. Remember that a conclusion will always require support. It will leave you asking "why?" or "how?" The premises are the support, and they will answer these questions. Let's go through this passage and identify each sentence. Sentence 1: This is just a fact. It is background information explaining what dictation software is. Sentence 2: A premise about how the software was promoted, followed by the claim that the software failed to live up to its promotion. The author claims that the software failed as a labor-saving invention. This leaves me thinking, "Ok, prove it. Why is it a failed invention?" The next two sentences answer this question. Sentence 3: Because typing was not the laborious part of writing. Sentence 4: And proofreading for frequent errors squanders time saved by not typing. It doesn't specifically say "because" but I included that because I can see what the author is trying to do. I can tell that the last two sentences are meant to support the second sentence. The author's purpose here is to explain why dictation software is a failure. A statement supported by premises is a conclusion. This is the type of the premise-conclusion relationship that you are going to see constantly on the LSAT. Every conclusion is going to be backed up by evidence. Even if the evidence is weak, you must be able to follow the structure of an argument.

Hi, @SamA, can you explain why the last two sentences don't qualify as a premise leading up to a subsidiary conclusion in Sentence 4 that supports the main conclusion? Couldn't it be read, "Typing is not the laborious part of writing. (implied Therefore) Proofreading for frequent errors squanders time saved by not typing."?

Can I please ask a similar question as above - why are sentence 3 or sentence 4 not considered secondary conclusions?

Yeah, I don't understand why sentences 3 + 4 are not conclusions?

Same question why aren't 3 & 4 subsidiary conclusion.

What would make 3 and 4 conclusions? What supports them in the passage?