vmadan10 wrote:
Hello Experts, Could you please help provide the OA and maybe an OE for this question.
Thanks!
MentorTutoring,
GMATNinja,
CrackVerbalGMAT,
nightblade354,
GMATNinjaTwo,
egmat,
MartyTargetTestPrep,
DmitryFarberAll right, I will stick my neck out on this one. I will say, first of all, that the source appears to be
this article on CR on MBA Crystal Ball. That post predates the one above on this forum by a few weeks.
No answer was provided on the blog, so I cannot exactly deliver on providing the OA and OE. However, in the interest of assisting the community, I will offer my thoughts. If nothing else, we may be able to generate more dialogue on a tough question. Since this is a
boldface question, we have to be careful not to read just the boldface portions and make a hasty determination. Instead, we need to read the passage as we would any other, looking to understand how each sentence builds off the ideas of another, and how the sentences we need to focus on relate to the passage on the whole. The passage, with the boldface removed:
karthiksms wrote:
Hedge Fund managers who have invested in the sub-prime mortgage markets have cited the ongoing economic crisis as reason for delivering lower than expected returns. It is indeed true that the economic crisis has had an adverse impact on regular equity investors, but in the case of hedge funds, this excuse is clearly not acceptable. Hedge funds are intrinsically designed to protect against market uncertainties, and therefore, should have provided sufficient cover against the economic crisis. Rather, it is lack of prudent investing that is to blame.
Sentence 1 provides a claim. Hedge Fund managers point to
the ongoing economic crisis for delivering lower than expected returns.
Sentence 2 starts with a concession in
it is indeed true, but then the line takes a turn at, fittingly enough,
but. The author of the passage states that the reasoning of the Hedge Fund managers
is clearly not acceptable, since the same market conditions do not apply to regular equity investors and hedge fund investors.
Sentence 3 mentions the intrinsic design of hedge funds
to protect against market uncertainties, so this inherent failsafe
should have provided sufficient cover against the undesirable outcome of
delivering lower than expected returns (from line 1).
Sentence 4 provides a counter-explanation for the development: hedge fund managers, the ones who did the investing, did not invest cautiously enough.
The passage map is simple enough. What do the answer choices have in store, though?
karthiksms wrote:
A. The first provides evidence to support the conclusion of the argument as a whole; the second states the conclusion.
I will be honest and say that I eliminated this answer choice immediately, as soon as I reached
evidence. If I say that a certain behavior is
unacceptable, then I am voicing my opinion, not providing evidence. Besides, in the passage, the
why behind
this excuse is clearly not acceptable comes in the lines that follow. In boldface questions, I like to see if I can clearly eliminate anything in a first pass, sometimes focusing on one boldface portion or the other (i.e. not focusing on both at the same time).
Evidence here is a clear red light.
karthiksms wrote:
B. The first states the conclusion of the argument as a whole; the second states an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in order to support that conclusion.
I have zero reservations here about the role of the second boldface portion. Why is the excuse of the Hedge Fund managers unacceptable? Because of the intrinsic design of hedge funds. The conclusion marker
therefore could just as easily be a
so (with an appropriate altering of the punctuation). Moreover, this intermediate conclusion that the inherent design of hedge funds should have prevented diminished returns supports the earlier statement that the excuse of the Hedge Fund managers
is clearly not acceptable. The only question I have is whether that earlier conclusion is
the conclusion of the argument as a whole. I would feel more comfortable if the last sentence of the passage were stitched together with the line that contains the first boldface portion, as in,
It is indeed true that the economic crisis has had an adverse impact on regular equity investors, but in the case of hedge funds, this excuse is clearly not acceptable; rather, it is lack of prudent investing that is to blame.This is to say that the final line of the passage relates unequivocally to the first boldface portion, as if the thought were broken up across a few lines. In this altered version, would you feel comfortable stating that
this excuse is clearly not acceptable is the main conclusion over
it is lack of prudent investing that is to blame? I would
yellow-light this answer for now and assess the others.
karthiksms wrote:
C. The first is the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence against the position being opposed.
Again, I did not make it past the first part here. The argument is
built from the first boldface portion, so to say that it represents
the position that the argument... opposes is the opposite of what we are looking for. After (B), this is a welcome option. Keep moving.
karthiksms wrote:
D. The first states an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in order to support the conclusion of the argument as a whole; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
In this case, the second part is easier to disqualify, in my mind, than the first. I would call this a trap answer for the test-taker who immediately assumes that the presence of
therefore toward the end of a passage must mean that whatever follows is the main conclusion. But we cannot ignore the fact that the entire line, sentence 3, serves to qualify the statement made just before, in sentence 2, that
this excuse is clearly not acceptable. If sentence 3 provides an answer for
How so?, then it cannot be seen as the main conclusion, but as support for some other conclusion instead.
karthiksms wrote:
E. The first and second both state intermediate conclusions that are drawn in order to support jointly the conclusions of the argument as a whole.
I cannot deny that the first and second both state conclusions, but whether the first is an
intermediate conclusion is debatable, in light of the last line of the passage. I am also uncomfortable with the plurality of
conclusions in the latter part of the answer choice. I know it sounds as if I might be making a big deal out of nothing, but if it said
conclusion, I would have a harder time going against it. The original question does, in fact, say
conclusions, so supposing that the
s belongs there at the end, we have to ask ourselves, what are these
other conclusion
s that the argument puts forth? If we remove the boldface conclusions, we are left with the following:
karthiksms wrote:
Hedge Fund managers who have invested in the sub-prime mortgage markets have cited the ongoing economic crisis as reason for delivering lower than expected returns. It is indeed true that the economic crisis has had an adverse impact on regular equity investors... Hedge funds are intrinsically designed to protect against market uncertainties, and... Rather, it is lack of prudent investing that is to blame.
I can support the notion that the line beginning with
rather is a conclusion, but if you want to point to anything else and call it such, I will be dumbfounded. In my mind, there is no room for a second conclusion in the non-boldfaced portion of the passage. This answer choice says
conclusions. I cannot find
them with the boldface portions removed.
Between (B) and (E), for the reasons I have outlined above,
I would choose (B) as the answer. I hope that helps the community. I would love to hear other Experts weigh in. At any rate, the question helps us pause for a moment and really consider
exactly what the passage and answer choices are saying, and that should prove fruitful in your CR studies.
- Andrew
close
05 Jun 2012, 20:34
66%
(02:07)
wrong 
