In-Depth: Arguments: Premises & Conclusions

CLAT Application & Relevance

Importance: VERY HIGH. This is the foundational skill for the entire Logical Reasoning section. Every Critical Reasoning question (strengthen, weaken, assumption, inference, flaw) requires you to first accurately identify the argument, its premises (evidence), and its conclusion (main point). Misidentifying these core components will inevitably lead to incorrect answers. Developing this skill is paramount for success.

How it's tested: Implicitly in every LR question. Sometimes, questions might directly ask you to identify the conclusion or premises within a given passage, or to discern the logical structure.

Section 1: Core Concepts & Identification Strategies

In Critical Reasoning, an argument is a set of statements, one of which is claimed to follow from the others. The statements offering support are called premises, and the statement being supported is called the conclusion.

Key Definitions

Argument: A claim (conclusion) supported by reasons (premises). It's an attempt to persuade or prove something.
Premise(s): The statements that provide evidence, facts, reasons, or justifications for the conclusion. They are the "givens."
Conclusion: The main point, claim, or opinion that the author is trying to convince you of. It is the statement that is being supported by the premises.

Strategies for Identifying Premises and Conclusions:

Look for Indicator Words: These are powerful clues:
- Conclusion Indicators: therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently, as a result, clearly, it follows that, shows that, proves that, indicates that, must be, should be, this suggests, this demonstrates.
- Premise Indicators: because, since, for, as, given that, provided that, due to, in view of the fact that, the reason is that, assuming that, studies show.
Identify the Main Point: What is the author ultimately trying to say or prove? This is usually the conclusion. All other statements typically support it.
The "Why Test": Ask "Why?" to a statement. If the answer is another statement in the passage, the original statement is likely the conclusion, and the answer to "why" is the premise.
Example: "You should study hard (Conclusion) because CLAT is tough (Premise)."
Why should you study hard? Because CLAT is tough. (Works)
Context and Flow: Understand how sentences relate to each other. Information presented first is often background or premises, leading to a conclusion. However, conclusions can also appear at the beginning (followed by supporting premises) or in the middle.
Distinguish from Background/Filler: Not every sentence is a premise or conclusion. Some sentences might be background information, counter-arguments (that the author then refutes), or elaborations that don't directly support the main conclusion.

Section 2: Solved CLAT-Style Examples

Example 1: Identifying Premises and Conclusion in a Policy Argument

Passage: "The proposed amendment to the environmental protection law will significantly increase compliance costs for industries. Consequently, many small and medium-sized enterprises will face financial hardship and some may even be forced to shut down. Therefore, this amendment should not be passed by the Parliament."

Question: "Identify the premises and conclusion in the given argument."

Detailed Solution:
1. Identify Conclusion Indicator: "Therefore" directly signals the conclusion.
2. Conclusion: "This amendment should not be passed by the Parliament."
3. Identify Premises (Reasons for Conclusion): - Premise 1: "The proposed amendment to the environmental protection law will significantly increase compliance costs for industries." - Premise 2: "Consequently, many small and medium-sized enterprises will face financial hardship and some may even be forced to shut down." (This is a consequence of Premise 1, and also serves as a reason to support the final conclusion).
Answer:
Conclusion: The proposed amendment should not be passed by the Parliament.
Premises:
1. The amendment will significantly increase compliance costs for industries.
2. Many small and medium-sized enterprises will face financial hardship and some may even be forced to shut down.

Example 2: Premises and Conclusion with Hidden Indicators

Passage: "Judges often rule on cases that involve complex scientific evidence. Understanding this evidence requires specialized knowledge beyond typical legal training. A judge lacking such understanding cannot adequately evaluate testimony from expert witnesses. Thus, all judges should undergo mandatory scientific literacy training."

Question: "What is the main conclusion of the argument, and what are the primary statements supporting it?"

Detailed Solution:
1. Identify Conclusion Indicator: "Thus" points to the conclusion.
2. Conclusion: "all judges should undergo mandatory scientific literacy training."
3. Identify Premises (Why should judges do this?): - Premise 1: "Judges often rule on cases that involve complex scientific evidence." - Premise 2: "Understanding this evidence requires specialized knowledge beyond typical legal training." - Premise 3: "A judge lacking such understanding cannot adequately evaluate testimony from expert witnesses."
Answer:
Conclusion: All judges should undergo mandatory scientific literacy training.
Premises:
1. Judges frequently encounter cases with complex scientific evidence.
2. Evaluating scientific evidence requires specialized knowledge beyond standard legal training.
3. Judges without this specialized knowledge cannot properly assess expert witness testimony.