After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hun

After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. Many citizens of the communities around the bay have hailed this move, believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay. Ecologists, though, disagree, pointing out that a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

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

A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion. the first underlies the belief of the citizens. There's other evidence that supports the main conclusion
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. I agree that this one is not entirely clear but the best from all. As said in the above, the first is the ground for the claim of the citizens. The second I would say is evidence but never mind - undermine the claim of the citizens
C) The first is an opinion that the argument opposes; the second is evidence inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument. the first is a fact: ruling that allows to hunt sharks
D) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish while it could treated as circumstance, the main conclusion is about refuting the belief of the citizens and not explaining some fact
E) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. while it could treated as circumstance, the main conclusion is about refuting the belief of the citizens and not explaining some fact

I've a problem in understanding the Bold-face. Please explain how do we come to this answer?

i do not think that B can be the answer !!
the main conclusion of the argument is that the "Ecologists" are disagreeing with the the ideas mentioned previously and the bold portion is an explanation as why they are disagreeing . the bold portion is not the main conclusion but the reasoning behind the main conclusion

I selected B and here is why I felt B as the right answer

The first - commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay- describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion- Many citizens hailed the move believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay ;the second - a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish- states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

2nd bold face is indeed the main conclusion of the argument even though it might be the conclusion of the Ecologists that is contrary to the conclusion of many citizens.

@aditya8062, This is a problem from Magoosh. I hope that can be known from the tags.

I got an answer from Magoosh faculty(Kevin) on my questions. Here is verbatim response from Kevin:

How do first part of choices A and B differ?

Let's take a look at the first parts of those answers:
(A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument;
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion;
Now these are really similar. The key here is knowing what the final conclusion of this argument it is. We have to read the whole passage to see that there is one conclusion made by the citizens and then another conclusion made by Ecologists. Since the Ecologists conclusion comes at the end, we have to assume this is the final conclusion of the argument.

Once we know this, we can see that (B) is a little bit better since it hints at the fact that there are two conclusions and that one of them used this bolded sentence to support their conclusion. Nothing in (A) is necessarily wrong. It doesn't contain this extra detail so it is not as good as (B).

Are the second parts of choices D and E wrong? How do second parts of D and E differ?

Alright, let's take a look at these now:
(D) the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish
(E) the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.'
So we can say that (E) is wrong because it says that the second bolded statement "provides evidence." When someone says "will ..." in their sentence, they are not presenting evidence, they are making a claim. This should be read as a conclusion. So the second part of (E) is wrong for this reason.

Looking at (D), we can see that it is different. It does not make the same claim that (E) does about "providing evidence." So they are different. But (E) is wrong for another reason. The argument is making a claim. There is a conclusion being drawn here. (D) makes it sound like the second bolded sentence is an explanation. Now we need to be clear. What is the difference between and "explanation" and a "conclusion"? A conclusion is a claim supported by evidence. An "explanation" is a description of something. An explanation could be a conclusion but generally it is not, especially in the context of an argument. And explanation will be more objective and more descriptive.

This question might need to be revised. I can see that there are some subtle differences in these answer choices that make this question a little ambiguous.

I think it must be B. This is how I thought it through: the first part is a premise/evidence for conclusion A that decreasing sharks will increase these fish. However, the main conclusion is that decrease sharks will lead to decreasing these fish (contrary to first conclusion).

I marked A because I was not very clear about the conclusion of the argument.
It seems to be that there are two POV's one of citizen's and other of Ecologists. There were no Keywords to find a conclusion.
I am not able to digest that in case of two POV's, the one which comes later should be a conclusion.


Out of the above 2 , A should be the answer because it is true always and is independent of whatever the conclusion is !
It doesn't ask to point out the conclusion(be it main or counter which itself is not well defined in the first place)
However, B forces you to make a decision about the conclusion.

Can somebody please enlighten me ?

I don't think B should be the answer

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.

commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. --> it is not evidence. By definition, evidence is a fact and it should be conveyed in past or present, for sure not in future.

a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish --> it is not the contrary conclusion, contrary conclusion is that decrease in sharks will not lead to an increase in all smaller fish.

Should be D IMO.

it cant be A for the same reason I stated above.

Hi,

I think it should be B.

Anything that leads to go onto make a side or a position is an evidence. In this case the decision to allow commercial shark fishing and hunting leads us to the conclusion that the endangered fish species will be helped by the decision.Hence the decison is not the conclusion.

Now given and taking into consideration what this first conclusion says the main conclusion brings in another contrasting conclusion and because this has taken into consideration the first conclusion... this is the main conclusion.

Hope it helps.

Regards,
Dom

can someone help with this question?

Happy to help. Do you just need a general explanation of the question or do you have specific questions?

KW

What is the other conclusion in the argument as according to B the second bold face is the contrary conclusion?

Citizens made 1st conclusion, Ecologist made 2nd conclusion.

1st bold sentence helps(or stands as evidence) for Citizen to conclude something.
2nd bold part makes contrary conclusion(Ecologist's conclusion) to 1st conclusion which is made by citizens.

MAGGOSH OE:

The first bold statement is factual, evidence, and from this citizens draw a conclusion: good for the Green-Gilled Silverfish. The ecologists provide another fact, more evidence, and from all this evidence draw the opposite conclusion: bad for the Green-Gilled Silverfish. This latter is the second bold statement and is the main conclusion of the argument. Thus, the first bold statement is evidence that, at least initially, seems to support the citizen's conclusion, but the second, what the ecologist say, concludes the opposite. This is precisely what choice (B), the OA, says.

The first statement is a purely factual statement: shark fishing and hunting will resume. Just a plain unambiguous factual statement. This is evidence. This doesn't not inherent provide support for anything, as (A) suggests, nor it is a opinion, as (C) suggests, nor it is a conclusion, as (D) suggestion. Finally, the first statement describes the fact, the action, itself. The next sentence talks about how some people think this action is beneficial, but the first underlined statement itself says nothing about any value judgement: it is purely factual and descriptive. That's precisely why (E) is not correct.

I find B completely lame. First boldface is NOT an evidence !!

D is a better choice because first boldface is surely a true incident which is being discussed. Second boldface actually states that what the author seeks to establish at the end that sea lions are the principal predator of green filled silverfish.

B...I cannot digest

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hope this will help.

Pre-thinking - For Bold face questions, sequence of events is very important. the last of this sequence will be the conclusion.

1. After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay. >>> [Conclusion]Many citizens of the communities around the bay have hailed this move, believing that a decrease in sharks will lead to an increase in all smaller fish, including the endangered Green-Gilled Silverfish, whose only ecosystem is within Diamond Bay.

use of though, disagree suggest change of direction: [anti-conclusion]
2. Ecologists, though, disagree, pointing out that a decrease in sharks will lead to a surge in Sea Lions, which are the principal predator of the Green-Gilled Silverfish.

relation b/w these two. Cause of 1st 2nd is happening. So 2nd should have conclusion or part of conclusion. or say 2nd have ultimate conclusion.

1st BF - Clearly evidence that is supporting the conclusion.
2nd BF - something anti conclusion.

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

A) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion. --- 1st BF correct. 2nd is wrong.
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. ---- 1st is correct. 2nd is tricky. clearly contrary conclusion part is correct. 2nd part is main conclusion.
C) The first is an opinion that the argument opposes; the second is evidence inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument. --- Both are wrong.
D) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish--- both wrong.
E) The first describes the circumstances that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. --- both not correct.

Regarding your doubt, Are you 100% true that this will happen. "commercial shark fishing and shark hunting will resume in Diamond Bay." there is a weakner given in later part of the passage. If sea lion increased then also this fish will decrease. Also 2nd is not author's position it is Ecologists's.