State politicians are optimistic that the state s economic

Answer E

A) is just not correct coz both the bF are opposed.
b) again both BF are opposed not in the same line
c) i think it is the other way round
d) The first is not a conclusion !
E) Clearly first BF is the evidence in support of an conculsion which is finally disputed by BF2 .

Good question.
The answer should be straight E....
First supports the conclusion and the second opposes the conclusion.

Archit

though i agree with option E; however, i feel that B is not that bad
we can obviously say that the final conclusion of the argument is that "ALL IS NOT WELL IN THIS ECONOMY" (i am not getting into the details but the final conclusion of the argument seems something like this). Now the second part of B "the second is an interpretation of the conclusion." is exactly what must be the "INTERPRETATION" of "THE CONCLUSION" ----->so by that standard B seems correct !!

State politicians are optimistic that the state’s economic downturn will not be as severe as had been predicted. Their hopes are bolstered by the data released last week: the jobless rate declined two full percentage points in the last six months. But, many economists have pointed out the flight of unemployed residents to the bordering states where jobs are plentiful. Furthermore, many out of work residents have been rehired at minimum wage: virtually all new jobs in the state in the past year have been minimum wage jobs. Economists cast grave doubts on the economic well-being of the state.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is evidence in support of the conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
The first is the evidence to support the intermediate conclusion - "State politicians are optimistic that the state’s economic downturn will not be as severe as had been predicted. "
The second is not that conclusion -> Wrong

(B) The first is evidence opposed to the conclusion; the second is an interpretation of the conclusion.
The 1st bold faced is not opposing any conclusion -> Neither of that State politicians nor that Economist. The second is the main conclusion which opposes the conclusion drawn by State politician -> Wrong

(C) The first is an interpretation that calls the conclusion into question; the second is that conclusion.
The first is an fact or an observation. The interpretation of the 1st bold faced in subsequent lines by the author and he or she concludes in the last line. -> Wrong

(D) The first is a conclusion the argument calls into question; the second is the evidence that calls it into question.
The first is an fact or an observation -> Wrong

(E) The first is evidence taken to support a conclusion; the second is a position that opposes that conclusion.
The 1st Bold faced supports the conclusion made by "State politicians". The second bold faced states a position (Judgement or view) that opposes that conclusion -> Correct

E is the correct answer.

Herer is the segmentaion / classification of statements as facts, premise, etc:

State politicians are optimistic that the state’s economic downturn will not be as severe as had been predicted - Conclusion of State Politicians
Their hopes are bolstered by the data released last week: the jobless rate declined two full percentage points in the last six months - Evidence to support above conclusion
But, many economists have pointed out the flight of unemployed residents to the bordering states where jobs are plentiful - Fact presented by economist
Furthermore, many out of work residents have been rehired at minimum wage: virtually all new jobs in the state in the past year have been minimum wage jobs - Evidence by economist to support above point
Economists cast grave doubts on the economic well-being of the state - Stand / position taken by Economist

First BF statement is a fact/evidence that support conclusion of politicians. Second BF statement is a position going against the conclusion of the politicians

Does this argument has main conclusion? and what it is ?
is it necessary to always have a main conclusion in boldface CR questions?

The conclusion of the argument is
State politicians are optimistic that the state’s economic downturn will not be as severe as had been predicted.If we look closely at the question the first Boldfaced statement offers evidence which supports the conclusion in the previous statement.The second BF2 clearly disputes the same conclusion stating that the situation is not as rosy as it looks.
So the answer is clearly E.Please give me Kudos . I need them badly

IMO There is no main conclusion in this CR, but there is only one intermediate conclusion in the first statement. Main conclusion must be from author not from any actor in the argument. all the information in the argument is premises.

Dear r19 & jokschmer,

I'm happy to respond.

The main conclusion of the argument is the closing statement, the second BF statement.

jokschmer said: "Main conclusion must be from author not from any actor in the argument." My friend, with all due respect, that is 100% false. In real world arguments it often happens that a conclusion is a quote from some authoritative voice: this does not happen as frequently on the GMAT CR, but it's a totally legitimate structure.

To r19, I would say: every CR argument has a main conclusion. It's not always the last statement and it's not always completely clear, but there's always something the author of the passage wants the reader to conclude. This is a microcosm of the real world. In the real world, nobody writes an article unless she has a point that she want to convey.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Yup got it! ,Thanks ,even I thought 2nd BF is the main conclusion but got confused with the options and couldn't mark right answer.

Hi Mike,

Can you please tell me what 'interpretation of conclusion' means in option B? Does that mean an evidence?

Also - why is option C incorrect? If the conclusion is taken as the 2nd BF, then first statement does call the conclusion into question. Doesn't it?

Thanks!

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Chef in option C C) The first is an interpretation that calls the conclusion into question; the second is that conclusion.
interpretation means explaining the meaning of something while BF 1 is not giving any explanation it is the reasoning to support premise given before BF 1. So it is wrong

Official Explanation Magoosh:

In this argument, view #1 is that of the optimistic politicians, who look to the first piece of evidence #1, the jobless rate decline, for proof. That first piece of evidence is the first bold statement. Then view #2 is that of the economists. They cite more evidence, evidence that calls into question the politician's optimism in view #1. Finally, we get the economist's conclusion, view #2, the second boldface statement.

How to express that? The second is definitely the main conclusion of the argument, but the first, evidence #1, is not necessarily something the economists would reject, not something that opposes the economists or calls their view into question. The economists are well aware that the jobless rate has declined: they simply cite additional facts that cast this first fact in a different light. One way to say it is --- the first boldface statement, evidence #1, was used to support one conclusion, view #1, and the second boldface statement is a second conclusion, view #2, that calls the first into question.

This is what (E) says. (E) is the credited response.

PLEASE TELL ME THE CONCLUSION , I AM NOT ABLE TO FIND IT !!

Hello, Ub135. In general, I would advise against making a post in all caps. (In fact, I think it may be mentioned somewhere that such posts will be deleted by a moderator.) In the interest of helping you, however, have you read the above dialogue, especially those posts by mikemcgarry and aragonn? They should help explain the different roles the sentences are playing in the passage. You should be able to pick up on the idea that the optimistic view of the state politicians mentioned in the first line is not shared by many economists, who are mentioned for the first time after the contrasting word but. Also, the final line mentions grave doubts. That does not sound too rosy or optimistic to me. If you understand the passage layout, answering the question proves much more straightforward. If you make the beginner mistake of skipping the parts of the passage that are not in boldface, then the task will prove much more challenging.

Please let me know if you have further questions once you have read through the above responses. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Hi Mike,

You say that second BF is a conclusion. Than how come the correct answer is E, when it says that the second is a position that opposes that conclusion. I think the conclusion mentioned in E is what politicians think and the second BF is a position of the economists.