Confusion

@muhammad-sharief, Great question. Although the phrase "relative therapeutic success" does not occur in the stimulus, we can infer that this is talking about the last sentence of the stimulus because that's the only sentence that deals with a relative comparison (comparing many popular psychological theories vs. more scientific ones). Let's take a look at the argument. The critic opens by saying that a lot of popular psychological theories are bad because they're inelegant and don't dispel the mystery around the human psyche. However, the critic says that this doesn't matter because when compared to their scientific rivals, these theories have more therapeutic success. The question says, "The statement about the relative therapeutic success of many popular psychological theories plays which one of the following roles in the critic's argument?" As mentioned above, the relative therapeutic success refers to the last portion of the last sentence. The first part of the last sentence, "The theories produce the right results," is a subsidiary conclusion used to support the overall conclusion that "this is not really important." The second part of the last sentence (which is what relative therapeutic success is referring to and says, "therapeutically, they tend to have greater success than their more scientific rivals"), is a premise that is used to support the subsidiary conclusion. Now that we know that the phrase in question is referring to a premise of the stimulus, let's look at the answer choices. (A) says, "It is used to disprove evidence against these theories." However, the author doesn't attempt to disprove what some people are saying about popular psychology; he just states that these claims are irrelevant. Therefore, (A) can be eliminated since it's descriptively inaccurate. (B) says, "It is used to override some considerations against these theories." This answer choice sounds great. The qualms against the popular psychological theories deal with these theories being inelegant and unable to dispel mysteries around the human psyche. The part of the stimulus in question is used as evidence (a premise) that overrides these concerns because we're told that those concerns do not matter when you look at the relative therapeutic success of popular psychological theories and the fact that they're better relative to their more scientific rivals. (B) does a great job capturing the role of the portion of the stimulus we're looking at, so we can choose it; this is our correct answer choice. (C) says, "It is used to suggest that popular psychological theories are actually better scientific explanations than are their rivals." The problem with (C) is that the suggestion it's saying is happening doesn't actually happen in the stimulus. The only thing that we know about popular psychological theories and their scientific rivals is that popular psychological theories have better therapeutic results. Thus, we can get rid of (C). (D) says, "It is used to illustrate what the critic takes to be the most important aspect of scientific theories." We have no idea whether or not the critic believes that the therapeutic qualities are the most important. The only thing we know is that the therapeutic qualities are more important than the other factors that are discussed in the stimulus, but it's possible that there are other aspects of scientific theories that the critic considers to be more important that are not discussed, so we can get rid of this answer. (E) says, "It is used to suggest that the popular theories may not be as devoid of explanatory power as one may be led to believe." The critic does not suggest what (E) is saying. The critic just wants us to know that popular psychological theories are more effectively therapeutically than their more scientific rivals, regardless of whether or not they can explain the mysteries of the human psyche. (E) is descriptively inaccurate, so we can get rid of this answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

How do you determine the premise, sub conclusion and conclusion? I am still having difficulties still trying to figure out which is which. Is there any other additional videos that can go in detail premise and conclusion?

@Audrey-Swope, Great question. I recommend reviewing our Argument Structure video and lesson, as that will help you to better familiarize yourself with determining the premise, subsidiary conclusion, and main conclusion. I'm also happy to walk you through a strategy here. To find the conclusion, always think to yourself of what sentence or phrase is being supported by the rest of the stimulus. Additionally, if you're stuck and can't figure out the conclusion between two sentences, a good trick is to put the word "because" in between the sentences and then see which way makes more sense. The premises will always be providing support to another sentence or phrase in the stimulus. Sometimes, you'll encounter intermediate conclusions/major premises/subsidiary conclusions. These are all terms for premises that function as both a conclusion as well as a premise for another larger conclusion in the stimulus. Ultimately, the main conclusion of the stimulus will not be supporting anything else; the rest of the stimulus will be supporting it. Conclusion: the overall main point of the argument Premise: support used to prove or attempt to prove the conclusion Subsidiary Conclusion/Intermediate Premise: a piece of the argument that functions as both a conclusion and a premise; it's a conclusion that is supported by another premise, but it's also used as a premise to support the overall (main) conclusion of the argument Does this help? Let us know if you have any other questions!