2.7 Conclusions 51
Commentary
Your discussion should have led you to see that
the conclusion is the last-but-one sentence: the
claim that the only way to learn a language
properly is to go and live in the country where
it is spoken. The author is claiming this on the
grounds that spoken languages have many
‘variations and subtleties’ – such as dialects and
colloquialisms – and that school language
lessons cannot give students the requisite
exposure to these features.
Remember that what we are primarily
concerned with here is identifying the
conclusion. We are not yet evaluating the
argument or responding to it. But although
analysis and evaluation are separate activities,
there is inevitably some overlap between them.
For a claim to be recognisable as a conclusion
we have to be able to say that there is some level
of support given by the claims we identify as
the reasons, even if it is not entirely convincing
support.
The difficulty comes when there is more
than one possible way to interpret a text as
an argument. How can we be confident that
in [3] the penultimate sentence really is the
conclusion for which the author is arguing,
rather than, say, the last sentence? Might the
author not be saying that because of all the
dialects and colloquialisms that are found in
spoken languages, school lessons cannot give
students the exposure they need to learn a
language properly?
Well, the author might be saying this.
Critical thinking is not mind-reading. But nor
is it guesswork. What we should be asking,
when we analyse a piece of text as an
argument, is not what the author might have
been thinking, but which interpretations
gives us the best or most persuasive
argument. Another way to ask this is: Which
interpretation makes the best sense as an
argument? It is for this purpose that the
‘therefore/so’ test becomes a useful tool.
Compare:
[3a] The only way to learn a foreign language
properly is to go and live in the country
where it is spoken. Therefore classroom
teaching, books or DVDs cannot give
students the necessary exposure to the
variations and subtleties of everyday
speech (dialects, slang, etc.).with:
[3b] Classroom teaching, books or DVDs
cannot give students the necessary
exposure to the variations and subtleties
of everyday speech (dialects, slang,
etc.). Therefore the only way to learn a
foreign language properly is to go and
live in the country where it is spoken.The difference is quite clear. [3b] not only
makes better sense than [3a]; it is a better
argument than [3a]. In fact it makes better
sense because it is a better argument. The best
interpretation that we can place on [3] is that
the first, second and fourth sentences are
being presented as grounds for the third.
Abbreviated, and in standard form, we have:
R1 Spoken language has different accents
and dialects.
R2 There are also colloquialisms and slang.
R3 Classroom teaching, books and DVDs
cannot give requisite exposure (to these).C The only way to learn is to go and live in
the country.You may have wanted to say that R3 was an
intermediate conclusion from R1 and R2.The only way to learn a foreign
language properly is to go and live
in the country where it is spoken.
Classroom teaching, books or DVDs
cannot give students the necessary
exposure to the variations and
subtleties of everyday speech.
Which sentence is the conclusion of
argument [3] – and why?