A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool compan

Question

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool company has recently claimed that  the company is mismanaged , citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products. It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but  in this case it is clearly not justified . It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand, but in Burton's case it indicates no such thing. Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(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.

(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.

(C) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.

(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.

(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.

Similar question from GMATPrep  :   LINK

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

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   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?

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

abhimahna · Answer

Hi hazelnut , My two cents here brother

Always remember the marker words to determine the conclusion or the premise. Some of these markers for conclusion are clearly, therefore, hence, thus, claimed, etc. For premises, we have Since, because, the reason is, etc. Now, in this question we have two claims: 1. The prominent investor claim. "the company is mismanaged" 2. The author's claim stated by the word clearly . "in this case it is clearly not justified". Now, you to determine which is a conclusion and which is a premise: You can always use AB test. Is A because of B? --> Then A is the conclusion Is B because of A.? --> Then B is the conclusion. Other than this, try to find out what the author is trying to say and then what he has used as an extra information to prove his point. The extra information will be the premise and the author's point will be the conclusion.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool company has recently claimed that the company is mismanaged, citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products. It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but in this case it is clearly not justified. It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand, but in Burton's case it indicates no such thing. Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

Let’s understand the structure of the argument given-

Prominent investor’s opinion/conclusion - the company is mismanaged,

Reasons/evidence/premise - citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products.

Author’s opinion/ conclusion - It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but in this case, it is clearly not justified.

Reasons/ premises - It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand, but in Burton's case it indicates no such thing. Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

The first BF is the conclusion of the investor that the author disagrees with. The second BF is the conclusion of the author.

Let’s scan the options and eliminate all the options that do not follow this structure.

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 second BF is not evidence but the conclusion of the author.  Eliminate

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. 
 Same as A.

C. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
 Both are correct.

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 first BF is not evidence but the conclusion/main position of the investor.  Eliminate .

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.
Same as D.  Eliminate .

Option C is correct.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

akashb106 · Answer

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 first statement is correct, but the second statement is not an evidence.

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 .---  Same as A. Second statement is not evidence.

C The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.---   CORRECT.

D  The first is evidence that has been used to SMPPort a position that the argument as a whole opposes ; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.---  The first is not an evidence but just something the investor claims.

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 first statement is not an evidence but this what the investor claims.

BillyZ · Answer

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool company has recently claimed that  the company is mismanaged , citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products.  It is doubtful whether  an investor's sniping at management  can ever be  anything other than counterproductive,  but   in this case it is clearly not justified .  It is true that  an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand,  but  in Burton's case it indicates no such thing.  Rather , the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(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.
(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. 
(C) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
(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.
(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.

GMATNinjaTwo  Could you help to assist to analyse this question? Does the word "  clearly  " is a hint for the conclusion? Perhaps you could provide the explanations for the transition word in this argument. I have a hard time to identify the conclusion of the argument. Thank you.

GMATNinja · Answer

Here's the argument, rearranged somewhat:

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. 
 But, 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, in support of the investor's position that the company is mismanaged. 
 Therefore, the investor's criticism of management is clearly not justified (conclusion).

The first boldfaced section, "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 second boldfaced section, "in this case   is clearly not justified", 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 second portion is the conclusion of the author's argument.

Thus, choice (C) accurately expresses the roles of the two boldfaced portions.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

GMATNinja 
Sir,
By the word  that  in choice D, it indicates the first bold part (position/conclusion of the investor). So, i think, we should NOT care about what is going on the  highlighted   part (though the highlighted part is the EVIDENCE). Am I missing anything?
Thanks__

GMATNinja · Answer

I'm not exactly sure what you mean with regard to our previous explanation, but I can say that analyzing the role of the word "that" in this answer choice isn't necessary for us to eliminate choice (D).

We know that the 1st BF portion is NOT evidence. It is the position of the prominent investor.

We also know that the 2nd BF portion does NOT undermine evidence. It is the conclusion of the author.

Choice (D) misrepresents both BF portions on their own, so we can eliminate the entire answer choice based on either of those misrepresentations.

I hope that helps!

kornn · Answer

Dear  VeritasKarishma   AjiteshArun   GMATGuruNY   IanStewart   MartyTargetTestPrep   DmitryFarber ,

I have some question on the meaning of the  highlighted  portion before the 2nd BF:

The highlighted portion means the author thinks "an investor's sniping at management" is "counterproductive" right?
This sentence is a little bit confusing because of the double-negative -- i.e., "doubtful" and "anything other than"

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  varotkorn ,

You are right about this. The highlighted portion tells us that (I'm ignoring the  doubtful  bit here) the author thinks that an investor's sniping at management is counterproductive.

TargetMBA007 · 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)?

GMATNinja · Answer

The author is the person writing the passage, so yes -- his/her conclusion is generally the main point of the passage as a whole.

Boldface questions can ask about any piece of the passage, and it's not uncommon for another party's conclusion (or support for that conclusion) to pop up. Because there are so many different roles a given piece of the passage can play, it's best to break down the structure of the entire argument, and THEN focus on why the author included each BF.

If you want to suffer through a full hour on boldface CR questions,  here's a video .

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja  -

Hi Experts - My question is on the structure of the sentence (not on the answer choice)

It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive ,  but   in this case it is clearly not justified

The yellow highlight can be reworded to say -- Sniping is always counter-productive

The word after is  "BUT"  which should change the direction of what comes next (maybe Sniping is Good in this case?)

BF 2 then states -- Sniping is NOT justified in this case

I think the word  "BUT"    should be replaced with "And", specifically "and in this case,  sniping is not justified "

The word "BUT" seems to be misplaced according to me because "BUT" indicates what comes in BF 2 should be directionally opposite to what is said in the yellow highlight

Please let me know your thoughts with regards to the word "BUT" specifically as i think it should be "And in this case ....."

KarishmaB · Answer

Here, "but" gives the contrast between "doubtful" and "clearly".

It is  doubtful  whether A can ever be productive ... but in this case, it is  clearly  not justified.

anshul0130 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja  - There is similar question to this one and I have mentioned it below for your reference. Can you please explain the role played by both the bold faced statements ?

As per me, Author's conclusion is "in this case it is clearly not justified" and Author's Intermediate conclusion is "In Burton's case it indicates no such thing".

However, i am not able to interpret meaning of the sentence - It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but in this case it is clearly not justified. Thus, not able to relate both the bold face statements.

Can you please help me here ?

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool company has recently claimed that the company is mismanaged, citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products. It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but  in this case it is clearly not justified . It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand.  In Burton's case it indicates no such thing , however: the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

Thanks,
Anshul P

KarishmaB · Answer

PanpaliaAnshul

It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but  in this case it is clearly not justified

This sentence means that an investor complaining about management will only be counterproductive. It will only worsen the situation. So it is generally bad. But in this case, it is not even justified. 
Then the argument goes on to explain why it is not justified. Though increased inventory does often indicate less demand and more production but it is not so in Burton's case. Their inventory production is against orders received. So increased inventory is increased demand or slower delivery.

Please give the entire question along with options to discuss this in further detail.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

An investor has said that BTC is mismanaged. That their inventory is rising but they have not slowed production. (One would normally assume that if a company has too much inventory (unsold product), they will slow down production and wait for the product to move. Only then will they produce more. Otherwise storage issues etc. are likely to arise.)

This sentence means that an investor complaining about management will only be counterproductive. It will only worsen the situation. So it is generally bad. But in this case, it is not even justified.
Then the argument goes on to explain why it is not justified. Though increased inventory does often indicate less demand and more production but it is not so in Burton's case. Their inventory production is against orders received. So increased inventory is increased demand or slower delivery. So current product in inventory is already sold so they should keep producing.

MBAcandidate1005 · Answer

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool company has recently claimed that  the company is mismanaged , citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products. It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but  in this case it is clearly not justified . It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand, but in Burton's case it indicates no such thing. Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(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.

(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.

(C) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.

(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.

(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.

Important to remember the main conclusion will always be stated by the author unless it is a dialogue format or stated by someone special. In this case the author sets up the first entire statement to counter it with his own opinion which is that "in this case it is clearly not justified". Thus, this is the main conclusion of the argument which is in an opposite direction to the first boldface statement. Also, the first boldface is not any evidence, but a claim by investor that is supported by evidence in next sentence. With this information we can eliminate wrong options and come to the option C.

Sneha2021 · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATNinja

The second boldfaced section, "in this case   is clearly not justified", 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 second portion is the conclusion of the author's argument.

I was reading this explanation and had a doubt in this line: "Stating that the investor's sniping was not justified does not, by itself, undermine the evidence"
1)If something is not justified, it means that it weakens the argument. If investor's sniping was not justified, we can conclude that it is undermining the evidence (bcz evidence was given by investor only).

Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool compan

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool compan

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards