People don’t always explicitly state the conclusion of their argument.

Consider this argument:

“The fact that marijuana is legal doesn’t matter in this case, drug use significantly impairs a parent’s ability to attend to the basic needs of their child. And, as you know, child neglect is a crime!”

What is the conclusion of this argument? Some may say that the conclusion is stating that marijuana use is morally wrong; however, once you use context clues you will discover that the conclusion is actually that marijuana usage by parents can, in at least some instances, still be a crime even if marijuana is legal. These are two very different conclusions.

How to identify hidden conclusions:

Identifying hidden conclusions can be difficult and there is not necessarily a formulaic way of figuring out if there is a hidden conclusion. However, there are a few methods which should give you a clue:

Method 1: Ask, ‘why are they making this argument?’

Consider the following argument:

“Physicians are here to protect patients from harm, but euthanasia harms a patient by killing them. Thus, by engaging in euthanasia physicians are breaking their oath! Oaths are important and people in all professions should stick to their oaths.”

It may seem that the conclusion to this argument is ‘by engaging in euthanasia physicians are breaking their oath’. However, when you ask, ‘why are they making this argument?’ you will realize that the conclusion is actually something closer to ‘physicians should not be allowed to practice euthanasia’.

Method 2: See if there are any bolder claims that could be directly (or very nearly directly) inferred from the premises.

Consider this argument again:

“Physicians are here to protect patients from harm, but euthanasia harms a patient by killing them. Thus, by engaging in euthanasia physicians are breaking their oath! Oaths are important and people in all professions should stick to their oaths.”

If we construct this into standard form, we may get:

1). Physicians take an oath to do no harm to their patients

2). Euthanasia harms patients

3). People should not break their oaths

4). Thus, physicians who practice euthanasia break their oath.

However, notice that the conclusion (as currently written) is inferred from premises 1) and 2). But when we consider premise 3) and 4) we can directly infer that ‘physicians should not be allowed to practice euthanasia. Thus, that may be our missing conclusion.

1). Physicians take an oath to do no harm to their patients

2). Euthanasia does harm their patients

3). People should not break their oaths

4). Thus, physicians who practice euthanasia break their oath. (Inferred from 1) and 2))

5) Thus, physicians should not be allowed to practice euthanasia. (Inferred from 3) and 4))

Comprehension Questions

Identify the hidden conclusions in the following passages