In this lesson section, I am given two statements in bold. The following statements are the parts in bold, and these sentences have been extracted from a longer paragraph:

"In traditional small towns, people used to work and shop in the same town in which they lived [...]" *Bold 1*

"So, in order to improve workers' quality of life, new businesses should be encouraged to locate closer to where their workers would live." *Bold 2*

I can easily identify the first one as a premise. The second one is a little bit tricky since the "so" indicates a conclusion and the "in order to" indicates a premise. For the purpose of this exercise, the *bold 2* is considered a conclusion. The answer sheet explains that the second sentence is a conclusion that is not necessarily true based on the evidence.

I think that the *bold 2* statement contains an embedded necessary condition alongside the conclusion. For instance, the embedded part is "in order to improve workers' quality of life." Since the answer sheet explains that the conclusion is not necessarily true based on evidence, can we conclude that conclusions with an embedded necessary condition not relating to the first premise are not necessarily true?



Matt

No, I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I see where you're going with this, though --

In this particular passage, the conclusion is that IF they want to improve quality of life, THEN they will relocate. The whole sentence is actually functioning as a conclusion here. You can't, in this case, separate the two parts of the sentence and say that they function two different ways.

Veritas Help