Answer is A. Conclusion is that the rumours are false, first statement stays as a support to the conclusion however the second bold statement questions the support

I also think that the answer should be A. Here's my line of reasoning


Premise 1: several of a bank's ' top executives have been buying shares in their own bank
Sub-conclusion: the bank's depositors have been greatly relieved

Premise 2: top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness
Sub-conclusion: those worrisome rumors must be false

conclusion and MP: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic
Premise 3 that supports the main conclusion: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health

IMO the main point is that the reasoning is not good. So what the argument seeks to establish is that the bank's depositors wrongly assumed that several top executives have been buying shares in their own bank because they have faith in the bank's financial soundness

taking a look at the answer choices

A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

This seems to fit with the structure of the passage. The first bold face statement support the conclusion that top executives have been buying shares in their own bank because they have faith in the bank

B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
The second bold face statement is not a conclusion, so we can rule this one out.

C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion
second is not a conclusion but rather a premise. We can rule out this one as well.

D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

What the argument seeks to explain is that bank's depositors wrongly drew their conclusion and this is not mentioned in the first bold statement.

E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Same reasoning as in D.

OA :
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

good exercise...keep posting

What was the OA on this? Can not see it???

A...

I'm sorry but why is the second bold faced not a conclusion?

I picked B because I believe it is a conclusion.

The OG says "the second statement is not offered as a conclusion - no evidence is given for it; rather it is the evidence for something else"

I'm trying to understand the full context of this sentence and am I hold true that for a statement to be a conclusion, there has to be evidence to support it?

I guess looking back at the statement, there is nothing additional that supports it, it is just a statement of fact.

If this is the case, what in bloody hell is the conclusion then?