Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older

Question

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes,  since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

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

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.

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

(D) Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

Similar question from Official Guide 2018  :

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

The "content of the conclusion" is the same as the conclusion. For example, the content of an essay is what the essay contains. it is essentially the essay itself.

Then why do we say "content of the conclusion" and not simply "conclusion"?

Consider this:

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  For a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly  because the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.
 
What is the bold portion here? It is the conclusion of the argument. This clause gives the author's opinion and is the reason he wrote the argument.

Now consider our original argument:

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly . The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

What is the conclusion here? 
The answer, clearly, is yes.

This clause gives you the author's opinion. But what is he saying yes to? If I ask you what the author's opinion is, will you say "he feels yes"?
No, you will say, "He feels that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly." This is what he is trying to tell you. 
So the part in bold is the content of the conclusion but due to the way it is structured, we cannot call it the conclusion because the author doesn't himself say it.

Consider a dialogue:
A: Do you think  Anna will succeed ?
B: Yes

B's conclusion is that Anna will succeed. Hence the portion in bold is the content of B's conclusion even if B doesn't say it in as many words.

Vatsal7794

Amit0507 · Answer

As per ManhattanGMAT "the content of the conclusion of the argument" is the the  conclusion    itself; hence the statement is wrong. "E" clearly states that both the bold statements provide support to the conclusion: "YES"

buffdaddy · Answer

This BF question introduces some new terms
"Content of the conclusion" - Since the conclusion is a simple "YES", the content IMO is the question to which the answer is yes. This happens to be the non underlined part, So looking at the answer choices, lets eliminate A and B.

We can eliminate C because conclusion isn't underlined.

We can eliminate D because the underlined portions do not oppose the conclusion.

We are left with E, which seems fine.

WoundedTiger · Answer

What's wrong with A here....

You can boil down to option A and E and then is critical part...

Conclusion: Yes the new technologies use less fuel than older technologies as the electricity needed to run new technolgies is lesser than older technologies...

The statement 1 tells you a fact on the basis of which conclusion is reached... St 1 gives you the information which will help arrive at the conclusion not necessarily supporting the conclusion...

E is both supporting...how ??

vad3tha · Answer

Hi, I saw the question from OG GMAT 13th (CR #98)
The two bold face section are as followed:

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant.

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion
of the argument; the second provides support
for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of
the argument; the second identifies the content
of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument;
the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of
the argument; the second calls that conclusion
into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the
argument.

And OA is B

So what is the source of your question?

Skywalker18 · Answer

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes,  since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

BF 1- Fact that supports the conclusion
BF2 - Fact that is supports the conclusion
Conclusion - Yes it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. - Incorrect - the first does not identify the content of the conclusion
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion. - Incorrect - the first does not identify the content of the conclusion
(C) The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument. - Incorrect- the first does not go against the conclusion, the second does not state the conclusion
(D) Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question. - Incorrect - both of the boldfaces support the conclusion
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument. - Correct

Answer E

Madhavi1990 · Answer

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

CONCL: The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. Took me 3-4 readings of it but finally got that the BF sentences are actually evidence/ proof/ facts while the sentence in the middle is the conclusion.

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

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
(D) Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument. -  only E has the structure mentioned above

NeoNguyen1989 · Answer

hey guys, can anyone tell me why there are different answers to the same problem here. The answer in this thread is E while the answer for the same question in another thread is B https://gmatclub.com/forum/delta-produc ... 31942.html

Doer01 · Answer

Hi Folks,
 Lets break the argument down.
 Background info:   Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.   Alright.  
 Question that the author answers:   whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. 
 Author's conclusion/answer:  The answer, clearly, is yes,
 Ask yourself:  Now do we really need  this  info? What if I take it out and shorten the author's response? 
Everyone would be staring at the author for a support. Aha! it is supporting author's answer. 
 THIS:   since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant. 
What about the first BF statement? What if I take it out? Why would the author be answering then? 
Turns out, BF1 is also necessary for author to answer.
So, E, Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument, it is.

Albs · Answer

NeoNguyen1989  the bold parts are different.

this question :  Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes,  since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

the other threads question:   Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant

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

NHasan19058 · Answer

I think the answer should be choice E. We can check whether each bold statement is evidence by asking what would happen to the conclusion without either of them.

The conclusion is that Delta's operations are now using less fossil fuel.

What happens to the conclusion if we remove entirely the first bold statement? That is, what if they had stayed with the old fossil-fuel technology? Clearly, the conclusion is hurt. Hence, their switching to the new technology is clearly support or evidence for the conclusion.

It is much easier to tell that the second bold statement is evidence because of the keyword "since". But, again, you can check by removing it. If you remove, then clearly the conclusion is hurt. 
(Copied from testluv -Kaplan teacher at toronto)

rnn · Answer

Hi,

I am not sure how the first statement is a support for the argument... I think that it is just a general fact statement. Kindly help. Thanks

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Yeah, good question. My take: the conclusion is "the answer is yes" which means you have to go find the question to *really* articulate the conclusion. So the conclusion is essentially:

for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly

Now, for that to be true, Delta has to have made a change in order for the former situation to be different from the present situation. And the first bolded portion gives us that change. So it's important information to support the conclusion: Delta's change is an integral part of the conclusion, not just mere background information (although I'd agree that it's close...I don't think they'd have (A) say that the first "provides important context for the conclusion" for example, because that's a little close for comfort. The first is important for the argument and not just throwaway background...it's at the very least important context to explain the conclusion. But that's not what any answer choices say)

khan0210 · Answer

Is this from GMATPREP or OG? Is this tag correct?

So given the almost 50-50 split in answer choice A and E, if we were to rephrase the argument as:

Because the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant,  the answer to the question whether Delta's operation,  since the recent switch at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity , now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly;  therefore, is yes .

Bold portions are each supporting the underlined conclusion.

But this brings me to the question what are we expected to understand by the term "identify the content of the conclusion"? as opposed to conclusion. Because as per the above rephrasing, BF (1) becomes background information (or context), which is the basis of the argument's conclusion, right?

quantumvibration · Answer

GMATNinja  Would you please me to understand why E is correct? Not able to comprehend how both of the BF statements support the conclusion.

egmat · Answer

Understanding the passage:

The passage speaks about Delta Products Inc. which recently switched from fossil fuel based old technologies to electricity based new ones. One could wonder whether their total fossil fuel usage lessened or not for a given constant output by using the new technology, but it did clearly lessen the usage since the fossil fuel to be burned to make enough electricity to run the new system is less than the fossil fuel burned to run the old system.

Conclusion:    
 For a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

Prethinking:

First boldface:  
 Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.   
Role: Provides context in line with the conclusion. Hence, we can say that it supports the conclusion.
Relationship to the other boldface: In the same direction

Second boldface:  
 since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant. 
Role: Provides reasoning to support the conclusion. 
Relationship to the other boldface: In the same direction.

Option Analysis

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
  The first BF does not give the content of the conclusion of the argument. It only sets a context. Therefore it is meaningless to say the second provides support to "that" conclusion, even though it does provide support to the actual main conclusion.

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
  The first does provide support for the conclusion of the argument. But the second boldface contains another point to support the conclusion. It does not contain the conclusion itself. "The content of the conclusion" is more or less the same thing as the conclusion. It can be expressed this way when the conclusion needs to be inferred from the passage.

(C) The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
  The first BF does not state anything that is opposed in the argument. The second BF only supports the conclusion; it does not state the conclusion.

(D) Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
  This option tells us that both BFs bring evidence that puts the conclusion in doubt. This means that the boldfaced statements oppose the conclusion, which is incorrect .

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument. 
 Both statements do support the conclusion; hence there is no reason to invalidate this answer. Providing context that does not oppose the conclusion, like BF1, also counts as providing support. Therefore E is the correct answer.

quantumvibration · Answer

egmat  Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Vatsal7794 · Answer

Hi Experts

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma   EducationAisle   ChrisLele   mikemcgarry   AjiteshArun   egmat   sayantanc2k   RonPurewal   DmitryFarber   MagooshExpert   avigutman   EMPOWERgmatVerbal   MartyTargetTestPrep   ExpertsGlobal5   IanStewart 
other experts

When we say " The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument ; the second provides support for that conclusion."

What do we mean by the bold face part?

Is it saying like first bold face sentence in the conclusion of the argument?

avigutman · Answer

Vatsal7794  In this argument, the conclusion, technically, is this:  The answer, clearly, is yes 
But, without any additional context, that conclusion isn't very useful... The content is missing. The author claims that the answer is yes, but - the answer to  what  is yes??
Well, that missing content is the role of the first boldface.
Edited to add: this ^^ is the claim made by answer choice A (which is incorrect).

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older

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

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older

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