« on: August 31, 2007, 05:46:39 PM »
This difference is germane for a hard LRB question, which I'll paraphrase:
Nutritionist: Because humans haven't evolved since the advent of agriculture, it is clear that humans are still biologically content with a diet of wild foods, consisting of raw fruits and meat, and seafood. Straying from this diet has often resulted in nasty illness and other physical maladies. Thus, the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we'll be.
The claim that humans are still biologically content with a diet of wild foods plays which one of the following roles in the nutritionst's argument?
B) It's a premise for which no justification is provided, but which is used to support the argument's main conclusion.
D) It's a sub-conclusion for which one claim is offered as support, and which is used in turn to support the main conclusion.
I thought it was "B" for sure, although the answer is the latter.
How can you tell?!