Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumRole in Argument

Maritime Historian: Commercial salvage firms argue that private deep-sea exploration should be granted unrestricted property rights over discovered historic shipwrecks to incentivize private investment in underwater recovery. However, private salvagers prioritize retrieving commercially valuable artifacts while disregarding fragile organic remains and spatial context. Consequently, allowing commercial salvagers unmonitored ownership inevitably destroys critical archaeological data. For this reason, international maritime authorities must prohibit granting private ownership titles to commercial salvagers who locate historic shipwrecks.

The claim that allowing commercial salvagers unmonitored ownership inevitably destroys critical archaeological data plays which one of the following roles in the maritime historian's argument?

  1. A
    It is the overall conclusion of the argument that all other statements are offered to support.
  2. B
    It is an unargued premise assumed by the author to describe the general practices of deep-sea salvage operations.
  3. It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence about salvagers' priorities and used to support the author's final policy recommendation.Answer
  4. D
    It is a concession made by the author to acknowledge a legitimate rationale behind commercial exploration.
  5. E
    It represents an objection raised by commercial salvage firms against regulatory intervention.

Answer

The statement serves as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding commercial practices and used to justify the main policy conclusion.
The correct answer accurately identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion. The author uses evidence about private salvagers prioritizing commercially valuable artifacts to conclude that unmonitored ownership inevitably destroys critical archaeological data ('Consequently...'). The author then uses this intermediate finding to justify the primary conclusion that international authorities must prohibit private ownership titles ('For this reason...').

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the stimulus.
The final sentence ('international maritime authorities must prohibit granting private ownership titles...') is the main conclusion, introduced by the conclusion indicator 'For this reason'.
Establishing the overarching goal of the argument determines the hierarchy of the claims.
2
Analyze the relationship between the cited statement and the surrounding statements.
The phrase 'Consequently' indicates that the cited claim is derived from the prior premise about salvage priorities, while 'For this reason' indicates that the cited claim directly supports the final recommendation.
A claim that receives logical support from premises and in turn provides support for the ultimate conclusion functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the functional role to the corresponding description.
The statement is an intermediate conclusion supporting the main policy stance.
This accurately captures the two-way structural dependency of the statement.

Key Concept

Identifying intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions in multi-tiered arguments
Rate this question

Topics

Role in Argument

More questions from this topic