While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy

[Bla Bla]

While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical- that is, medicinal means.This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malfunction.

1) what is the conclusion the argument, if any?
2) what premises re given in support of this conclusion?
3) Is the argument strong or weak? if u think the argument is weak, plz explain why?

Ans.
Conclusion :: This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malfunction.

Premise::While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical- that is, medicinal means.

The argument is weak...

My doubt is:-

I was not able to draw the conclusion and premise in this ques. I marked it as just a set of fact statements therefore no validity check is required. And I am confused even till now. The word "conclusive evidence" confuses me. Conclusive evidence means a strong enough evidence to be refuted. To be exact, business dictionary states it as "Preponderant evidence that may not be disputed and must be accepted by a court as a definitive proof of a fact " Now doesn't a definite proof mean it's a premise. So the argument is a set of premises which in other words means a set of fact statements. So how can we clearly state it was the conclusion of the argument?

[jnelson0612]

While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical- that is, medicinal means.This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malfunction.

1) what is the conclusion the argument, if any?
2) what premises re given in support of this conclusion?
3) Is the argument strong or weak? if u think the argument is weak, plz explain why?

Ans.
Conclusion :: This is conclusive evidence that psychoses, unlike neuroses, have nothing to do with environmental factors but rather are caused by some sort of purely organic condition, such as abnormal brain chemistry or brain malfunction.

Premise::While it was once believed that the sort of psychotherapy appropriate for the treatment of neuroses caused by environmental factors is also appropriate for schizophrenia and other psychoses, it is now known that these latter, more serious forms of mental disturbance are best treated by biochemical- that is, medicinal means.

The argument is weak...

My doubt is:-

I was not able to draw the conclusion and premise in this ques. I marked it as just a set of fact statements therefore no validity check is required. And I am confused even till now. The word "conclusive evidence" confuses me. Conclusive evidence means a strong enough evidence to be refuted. To be exact, business dictionary states it as "Preponderant evidence that may not be disputed and must be accepted by a court as a definitive proof of a fact " Now doesn't a definite proof mean it's a premise. So the argument is a set of premises which in other words means a set of fact statements. So how can we clearly state it was the conclusion of the argument?

Be careful not to confuse wording such as "conclusive evidence" as necessarily indicating a premise. Although wording can be helpful in breaking down an argument, it's not enough. You always have to think about what is the author's overall point.

For example, I could say:
"A study of 2000 people indicated that those who eat chocolate every day are happier than those who don't. This is conclusive evidence that all people should eat chocolate every day."
Conclusion: All people should eat chocolate every day.
WHY?
Premise: A study shows that people who eat chocolate are happier than those who don't.

In fact, I would argue that a sentence that starts with "This is conclusive evidence that" is very likely to be followed by a conclusion. You were first given some sort of conclusive evidence (premise) and now the author is going to tell you "that" this conclusive evidence indicates that something is true (conclusion).