guys, some confusing definitons of a BOLDFACEWHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCE BET'N
this is followed by a bold face which we can strip down and analyse. analyse word to word i mean. answer is not the main thing here. dissecting the words is the main focus.
Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasing shares in their own bank. This activity has occasioned some surprise, since it is widely believed that the bank, carrying a large number of bad loans, is on the brink of collapse. Since the executives are well placed to know their bank's true condition, it might seem that their share purchases show that the danger of collapse is exaggerated. However, the available information about the bank's condition is from reliable and informed sources, and corporate executives do sometimes buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to calm worries about their company's condition. On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
2) where is the explation.
B. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue the argument addresses; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first provides evidence to defend the position that the argument seeks to establish against opposing positions; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
a) evidence ?
b) position the the argument seeks to establish
c) opposing position?
D. The first provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the argument's main conclusion.
here positon means what? whose position?
E. Each provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish.
1) position and premise?
2) generalization and conclusion?
Let me try to answer
position is a stance or rather sub conclution
premise is evidence
2) generalisation is ablying one to all ,concl is final result or the clause which is supported by the premises or premise.
Concl is the one which is explained with support in the argument.Again there can be multiple conclutions like say ,premise1->concl1->concl2
hence concl which finally is decided in the argument is maiin conclution.
here the main concl of the above stem is
On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example.
This is main concl ,since its supported by rest of the premises,author concl this on the basis of counter premise (reliable bank reports )
hence we can eliminate B D E ,also keep A and C
now between A and C ,C states the first bolded faced as premise but says it defends the position that author seeks to establish,the argument when it does not seek to establish that banks not in danger.Hence eliminate C
A is perfect since first BF is represents circumstance that is argued here.
IMO A .Let me know if im wrong
Its Now Or Never