As with any boldface (BF) question, we want to first analyze the argument without paying any attention to the bold face. The conclusion is a bit tricky to identify, so let's review the argument, rearranging it somewhat to illustrate the logic:
- There has been a recent rise in Burton's inventory of finished products.
- An increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand.
- Despite the increase in inventory, Burton has not slowed production.
Based on this evidence, the prominent investor claims that the company is mismanaged. After all, if production is outstripping demand, shouldn't Burton slow production? But this is not the whole story...
- In Burton's case, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.
- This implies that Burton's production is NOT outstripping demand and that there is no reason to slow production. This undermines the evidence cited by the investor (evidence supporting the investor's position that the company is mismanaged).
- Therefore, the investor's criticism of management is clearly not justified (author's conclusion).
Now that we understand the conclusion and the argument, let's take a look at the boldfaced portions:
- "the company is mismanaged" - This is the position of the prominent investor, not the author.
- "in this case [the investor's sniping at management] is clearly not justified" - The author concludes that the investor's claim is not justified.
Which answer choice best describes the role of the boldfaced portions?
Quote:
(A) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed.
The 1st BF portion is the position of the prominent investor. The author opposes that position, so the first half of (A) looks good. The 2nd BF portion is not evidence. Instead, it is simply the author's position/conclusion. By itself, this statement does not undermine support for investor's position. The second half of (A) is inaccurate, so eliminate this one.
Quote:
(B) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed.
As in choice (A), the first half of (B) looks good. But, again, the 2nd BF portion is not evidence. Also, this statement in no way supports the investor's position. Instead, the 2nd BF portion is simply the author's conclusion (that the investor's claim is
not justified). Eliminate (B).
Quote:
(C) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
As in (A) and (B), the first half of (C) looks good. The 2nd BF portion is the author's conclusion, so the second half of (C) looks good too. Choice (C) accurately expresses the roles of the two boldfaced portions, so keep this one.
Quote:
(D) The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.
The 1st BF portion, "the company is mismanaged", is the
position of the prominent investor, not evidence to support the investor's position. The evidence cited to support that position is "the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products", and this portion is not boldfaced.
The 2nd BF portion does not undermine the evidence cited above ("the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products"). Stating that the investor's sniping was not justified does not, by itself, undermine the evidence. Rather, the 2nd BF portion is the conclusion of the author's argument. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
(E) The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The 1st BF portion is not evidence supporting the investor's position. Instead, it is simply the investor's position. The second half of (E) is okay, but since the first is inaccurate, (E) must be eliminated.
(C) is the best answer.
Hi, I was wondering with questions like this, where there is more than 1 Conclusion, would the Author's conclusion always be considered the "main conclusion" of the passage, unless otherwise specifically stated in the question?
Also, is it common to see questions (Boldface or say find the conclusion questions), where we could be asked to find the other party's conclusion (relative to the author)?