Psychiatrist: We are learning that neurochemical imbalances can cause behavior ranging from extreme mental illness to less serious but irritating behavior such as obsessive fantasizing, petulance, or embarrassment.
Conclusion
Learning that neurochemical imbalances can cause a wide range of behavior will promote compassion and tolerance when looking at a mental illness, quirk, or mere difference between two persons.
Evidence (since)
Being mentally healthy can now being to be seen as simply having the same neurochemical balances as most people.
Evaluate
Whenever we do Main Conclusion or Role, we remind ourselves that the Conclusion is earlier than the supporting premises 90% of the time.
Specifically, the conclusion is usually found in these two places: - the first sentence (if it's the author's opinion) - attached to a pivot word / rebuttal statement
In this case, does the first sentence sound like an opinion the author will defend?
Not really. It sounds more like a factual statement about where we're at in brain science. The author doesn't try to support the idea that . Supporting that claim would involve citing some of the research that has offered us those takeaways.
Instead, the author is just announcing those recent science findings as a factual starting point.
The 2nd claim is an Opinion, since it's about the future. Predictions are by definition opinions, and our author is predicting that as more people learn these scientific findings, we will be more compassionate and tolerant in how we think about mental illness or mental quirks.
We can tell that the author is supporting this claim, because it's followed up by a Support Indicator (FABS = for, after all, because, since).
Goal
Once we've correctly identified the conclusion, the hard part should be over. We just need to find the best meaning match for the 2nd claim: .