During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims
were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the
number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond
to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will
within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars
with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual
payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish.

Tricky question. I would opt A, though some other options also looks quite tempting.

The argument is talking about two strategies to reduce the payout:
1st, by changing the car-theft policies, which is not possible
2nd, by encouraging policyholders to install anti-theft device
Based on this the argument is giving the conclusion to opt for 2nd strategy.

Please note, this is not the main conclusion. Rather the main conclusion is in the last line "Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts."

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses. -Correct
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion. -First is not a judgment to support 2nd, rather both are different strategies.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy. -Both are different strategies, without any relation.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal. -Both are different strategies, without any relation.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish. -2nd is a sub-conclusion, and not the main conclusion. Rather the main conclusion is in the last line.
_________________

ISB 2011-12 thread | Ask ISB Alumni @ ThinkISB
All information related to Indian candidates and B-schools | Indian B-schools accepting GMAT scores
Self evaluation for Why MBA?

+1 for C.

It is touch and go. The only thing that might make A stronger is:
"and whose effectiveness the argument assesses"...this is what the rest of the argument does.

Question to be noted, lets see if we get something similar..if yes then we can conclude that answers that encompass the argument are considered a better choice for boldfaced

Brand new here (this forum and the accompnaying community are great BTW) but thought I would chime in. C is wrong because of two words:

1.) "support" - If the "certain strategy" is to reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, the first is then a consideration against adopting that strategy, not in support of it.

2.) "alternative" - Alternatively (no pun intended), if you interpret the first as a consideration in "support" of the "certain strategy" of offering discounts for customers who install anti-theft devices (which, at least to me, seems plausible), then the decision would not be for an alternative strategy.

Hope the questions keep coming - this is great practice.