Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumRole in Argument

Architectural Conservator: Several municipal heritage boards require owners of historic limestone buildings to apply synthetic water-repellent sealants, reasoning that preventing moisture penetration protects the facades. However, this requirement is counterproductive. Although synthetic sealants prevent liquid rainwater from entering from the outside, they inevitably seal in ambient moisture migrating from the building's interior. Consequently, during sub-zero temperatures, the trapped moisture freezes and expands beneath the masonry surface, causing irreversible spalling and surface fracturing. For this reason, municipal heritage boards should rescind the mandatory sealant requirement.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that during sub-zero temperatures, trapped moisture freezes and expands beneath the masonry surface, causing irreversible spalling and surface fracturing?

  1. A
    It is the overall conclusion of the argument that the author's evidence is primarily organized to establish.
  2. B
    It is a background rationale cited to explain why municipal heritage boards initially instituted the sealant mandate.
  3. It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by an earlier premise and used to support the author's final recommendation.Answer
  4. D
    It is a concession made to acknowledge a potential drawback of the author's proposed policy change.
  5. E
    It is an unevidenced premise introduced solely to illustrate how liquid rainwater enters porous stone facades.

Answer

The statement functions as a subsidiary conclusion supported by a preceding premise and used in turn to establish the author's ultimate policy recommendation.
The correct answer accurately captures the dual structural role of the targeted sentence. It is derived as a logical consequence ('Consequently') of the premise that sealants trap interior moisture, and it functions as the direct evidence ('For this reason') supporting the author's ultimate prescriptive conclusion that heritage boards should rescind the mandate.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the overall argument structure
The final sentence ('municipal heritage boards should rescind the mandatory sealant requirement') is the main conclusion, supported by the intermediate claim that the mandate is counterproductive.
Determining the main conclusion provides the reference point against which all other statements' structural dependencies are evaluated.
2
Analyze the structural relationships immediately surrounding the targeted claim
The indicator 'Consequently' signals that the targeted claim (freeze-thaw expansion and spalling) is inferred from the prior premise (sealants trap interior moisture). The subsequent indicator 'For this reason' signals that this claim directly supports the final recommendation.
Tracking premise and conclusion indicator words establishes whether a statement receives support, gives support, or both.
3
Classify the functional role of the targeted claim
Because the statement both receives logical support from a basic premise and provides support for the primary conclusion, it is an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
An intermediate conclusion acts simultaneously as a conclusion for an earlier sub-argument and as a premise for the main conclusion.

Key Concept

Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusion vs. Main Conclusion and Basic Premise
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Role in Argument

More questions from this topic