skamal7 wrote:
It is generally believed that an Indian tribe known as “The Red Paint People” first occupied the coast of Maine in approximately 3000 B.C. This name was given to the Indians because their graves contained quantities of a red pigment (iron ochre) that they presumably used to decorate their faces and bodies. However, recently discovered Indian grave sites on the coast of Maine that contain these same red pigments have been conclusively dated to 4000 B.C. Therefore, the “Red Paint People” must have occupied the coast of Maine much earlier than archaeologists previously believed.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is a commonly held belief that the argument seeks to refute; the second is evidence used in that refutation.
(B) The first is a generalization that the argument accepts as true; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first is evidence used to support a conclusion that the argument opposes; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
(D) The first is a conclusion that is generally accepted as true; the second is a conclusion that refutes it.
(E) The first is an intermediate conclusion that is generally accepted as true; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
I understand that the first Boldface is not an evidence. However, i fail to understand why it is termed as a conclusion. Shouldn't it be a premise, since the entire argument is built up on the first BF? Please help!
close
