Bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change. Thus, despite growing dissatisfaction with complex bureaucratic systems, it is unlikely that bureaucracies will be simplified.
The claim that bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
(A) It is a premise offered in support of the claim that it is unlikely that bureaucracies will be simplified.
(B) It is a conclusion for which the only support offered is the claim that dissatisfaction with complex bureaucratic systems is growing.
(C) It is cited as evidence that bureaucratic systems are becoming more and more complex.
(D) It is used to weaken the claim that bureaucracies should be simplified.
(E) It is a conclusion for which the claim that bureaucracies are unlikely to be simplified is offered as support.
it took around 2mins me to come up with IMO
here is my reasoning:
A) this options is correct, it is premise for the conclusion " it is unlikely that bureaucracies will be simplified."
B) it is just reverse of the option A. it's premise not the conclusion.
C) again distortion of the argument, argument is not intended towards this option.
D) similar to option C, here this offered for the conclusion as mentioned in end of the argument
E) similar to option B, it's wrong because the statement is not conclusion..
thanks for good questions. i tried 1000CR questions, but I found either too difficult or easy... thanks for your effort to pull out good questions. OA, please and comments on my reasoning as well as timing..Verbal area is challenging for me, especially cr and rc. i found 3cr a day quite interesting. thanks