Main Conclusion
Answering a Main Conclusion question about an inductive argument is much the same as doing so for a deductive argument: your job is still to determine which among the statements in the stimulus is the claim of the author, leaving the rest as supporting evidence. The difference comes in how you analyze the stimulus, all the things you did prior to attempting to answer the question. Once that’s done, your only potential issue is if the correct answer rephrases the conclusion (just as before).
For instance, let’s say our argument is:
A recent study found that students who drink two cups of coffee before studying tend to perform better on memory tests compared to those who do not. The researchers have posited that coffee consumption enhances cognitive function. They believe that the caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, enhancing focus and the ability to encode new information into memory.
Using the same approach we’ve been using, we can identify the Main Conclusion as “coffee consumption enhances cognitive function.” It is the statement among them that expresses a theory (as opposed to a statement of fact or observation). So, that’s what we’re looking for in the answer choices.
However, as before, it’s POSSIBLE that the correct answer could say:
Drinking coffee increases neuropsychological function, using synonyms for the terms in the statement.
Cognitive function is enhanced by coffee consumption, rephrasing the whole claim, but using the same language.
There is a causal connection between the consumption of coffee and improved cognition, both rephrasing and using synonymous language.
Method of Reasoning
Since Method of Reasoning questions ask for the PATH of the argument how do we describe the path of a causal argument?
Let’s use the above example:
A recent study found that students who drink two cups of coffee before studying tend to perform better on memory tests compared to those who do not. The researchers have posited that coffee consumption enhances cognitive function. They believe that the caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, enhancing focus and the ability to encode new information into memory.
Using our “Pillars of Causation” we can analyze the stimulus like this
Claim: coffee consumption enhances [causes enhanced] cognitive function
Temporality: …who drink two cups of coffee before studying…
Data: …students who drink two cups of coffee before studying tend to perform better on memory tests compared to those who do not.
Mechanism: They believe that the caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, enhancing focus and the ability to encode new information into memory.
And a circuit to go with it:
With the circuit in hand (or mind), let’s just describe what we see:
The argument makes a claim about a phenomenon based on observed data and a proposed theory as to how that phenomenon comes about.
As always, there’s no way to predict exactly the phrasing the item writer will use. But, you MUST arm yourself with your version of it first; then, go match it up with an answer choice.
Role in the Argument
This will be no different from what we did with deductive arguments. We’ve done our analysis. Now we simply match the clause the item called out with the role we’ve assigned it.
Claim: coffee consumption enhances [causes enhanced] cognitive function
Temporality: …who drink two cups of coffee before studying…
Data: …students who drink two cups of coffee before studying tend to perform better on memory tests compared to those who do not.
Mechanism: They believe that the caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, enhancing focus and the ability to encode new information into memory.
So, the roles are laid out for us again. We just need to be acutely aware of the sort of language the answer choice will use to obfuscate the correct answer while making the incorrect ones more attractive.
For instance, if the question asks for the role of the clause “They believe that the caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, enhancing focus and the ability to encode new information into memory” it is certainly possible the correct answer could say:
It is a potential explanation of the mechanism behind the causal connection posed by the researchers.
However, it is equally likely that the correct answer would say something like:
It is a premise which, in combination with other premises, support the claim of the researchers.
So, you must keep an open mind and be flexible about how SPECIFIC your prephrase of the correct answer is.