Last visit was: 15 Sep 2024, 20:48 It is currently 15 Sep 2024, 20:48
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 139
Own Kudos [?]: 4341 [522]
Given Kudos: 28
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4490
Own Kudos [?]: 29046 [181]
Given Kudos: 130
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15302
Own Kudos [?]: 68096 [32]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 64 [4]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
4
Kudos
another vote for (B). i just looked at the second part...which is not quite a conclusion. the conclusion is "the new technologies allow Delta Products Inc less fuel to produce same output..." the second highlighted part provides content for the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Status:Berkeley Haas 2013
Posts: 168
Own Kudos [?]: 61 [4]
Given Kudos: 16
Concentration: Consulting, Entrepreneurship
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
4
Kudos
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.

Look at the second part of the question - "the second identifies the content of that conclusion"

Now question to yourself - Does the second bold faced does that?

Now go back and check for it and you will realize that the second bold faced does identifies what the conclusion is when it says - "The question .....is"

And obviously the first bold faced supports the conclusion as to why Delta moved partly towards electricity

Hope that helps
Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 158
Own Kudos [?]: 738 [1]
Given Kudos: 87
Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Why is it D...the second boldface calls the conclusion into question ..The reason I am saying this is because before the second boldaface it says : - " The question has been raised whether i ...... "
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15302
Own Kudos [?]: 68096 [16]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
11
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
siddhans
Why is it D...the second boldface calls the conclusion into question ..The reason I am saying this is because before the second boldaface it says : - " The question has been raised whether i ...... "

I think you meant to ask why the answer is not D.
The most important step in CR questions is 'identifying the conclusion'. What is the conclusion in this argument?
The conclusion is the author's opinion, the point that he/she is trying to make. The conclusion is that Delta's operation causes less fossil fuel to be consumed now.
The second boldface part is only "for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly" which is exactly what the conclusion is. It gives the content of the conclusion.
There are many ways of giving the content of the conclusion. Say the conclusion is 'X'. You can say:
So we can conclude X.
or
Can we conclude X? Yes we can.

A statement that calls the conclusion into question would give an argument that would be against the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2010
Status:Prepping for the last time....
Posts: 71
Own Kudos [?]: 168 [2]
Given Kudos: 21
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
2
Kudos
According to what is given as bold phrases.. I feel the answer must 'B'e B

the second bold phrase just takes content of the overall sentence 'the question is...' and in the next sentence, it is stated that the answer is YES.

So B it is..
Current Student
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 353
Own Kudos [?]: 2777 [3]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
was stucked between B and D.
First BF: Fact / Evidence / Support to the conclusion
Second BF: hmm... the word WETHER makes it NEUTRAL, because we don't know the answer yet.
Conclusion: clearly --> YES

(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 - CORRECT

(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. --> to call into question -means smth. negative for the conclusion, but the 2nd BF is not negative (to make a question has not the same impact as call into question on the GMAT , the word wether is neutral
(E)Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument - second BF is neutral - doesn't support the conclusion
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 792
Own Kudos [?]: 2622 [4]
Given Kudos: 567
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
There are two versions of questions:

Version : 1

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?

(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.

Solution:
1st Bold Faced
Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.
This is a fact and it also supports the conclusion.
What is the conclusion:
clearly, is yes (that for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly)
And
2nd Bold Faced
for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly
is part of the full conclusion.
The author infers that Yes, for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly

Now lets do POE:

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
First is a fact that supports the conclusion but not the "content of the conclusion"

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

(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
1st supports the the conclusion and doesn't state the conclusion of the argument
2nd states the conclusion and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
2nd states the conclusion and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
2nd states the conclusion, option B) is better than Option E)

Version 2:

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?

(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.

As the analysis is same for both the version as premise is same, lets do the POE:

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
First is a fact that supports the conclusion but not the "content of the conclusion"

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
2nd BF doesn't identify the content of the conclusion. It supports the conclusion

(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
1st supports the the conclusion and doesn't states the conclusion of the argument
2nd also supports the argument and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
2nd also supports the argument and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
Correct as both the statements supports the argument
Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
1. What is meant by identifying the content of conclusion?
2. How is BF1 supporting the conclusion? How is it supporting "The answer, clearly, is yes". It is only a fact that has been stated and which forms the base of the argument. To support a conclusion, we need to have a fact that makes the conclusion more believable. Simply stating that "elta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity." does not make the conclusion more believable that "The answer, clearly, is yes". Else, the question that has been raised in the argument and immediately after BF1 would not have been raised.

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65112 [6]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
aviejay
1. What is meant by identifying the content of conclusion?
2. How is BF1 supporting the conclusion? How is it supporting "The answer, clearly, is yes". It is only a fact that has been stated and which forms the base of the argument. To support a conclusion, we need to have a fact that makes the conclusion more believable. Simply stating that "elta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity." does not make the conclusion more believable that "The answer, clearly, is yes". Else, the question that has been raised in the argument and immediately after BF1 would not have been raised.

perfectstranger
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2018

Practice Question
Question No.: CR 652
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?

(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.

Similar question from GMATPrep : [LINK]
First of all, check out this earlier post by mikemcgarry. See if that helps with your first question.

As for your second question, supporting the conclusion does not necessarily imply proving the conclusion. For a given level of output, is Delta's operation now causing less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly? If we have no other information, then we have no evidence either way.

If I then tell you that Delta has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity, then this is evidence that Delta has reduced its consumption of fossil fuel. By itself, this does not prove that the conclusion is true, but it still provides support for the conclusion.

I hope that helps!
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 194
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: India
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
ChiranjeevSingh

please explain option B
Intern
Joined: 01 Jun 2020
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
saby1410
ChiranjeevSingh

please explain option B

Please check this link https://gmatwithcj.com/critical-reasonin ... st-partly/
Current Student
Joined: 29 Dec 2018
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
Schools: Mannheim (A)
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
In bold faced questions, quickly break down the argument to see what role each statement is playing.

Premises:
1. Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. (Data given to us to support the conclusion)
2. 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. (Again, data provided to support the conclusion)

What is the conclusion? By giving this data, what is the author trying to say?
- for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly
He says, 'whether it can be concluded' and then says 'The answer, clearly, is yes'. So this is how he has given the conclusion.

According to what is in bold, choose your answer. In the original question, the answer is (B).

VeritasKarishma - Thank you for providing the context. But, could you please explain why can't it be "E"? Since both the statements are providing support to the conclusion?
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15302
Own Kudos [?]: 68096 [2]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
2
Kudos
panwaryamini
In bold faced questions, quickly break down the argument to see what role each statement is playing.

Premises:
1. Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. (Data given to us to support the conclusion)
2. 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. (Again, data provided to support the conclusion)

What is the conclusion? By giving this data, what is the author trying to say?
- for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly
He says, 'whether it can be concluded' and then says 'The answer, clearly, is yes'. So this is how he has given the conclusion.

According to what is in bold, choose your answer. In the original question, the answer is (B).

VeritasKarishma - Thank you for providing the context. But, could you please explain why can't it be "E"? Since both the statements are providing support to the conclusion?

No, the two boldface statements are not providing support to the conclusion. Premise 1 given above is boldface statement 1 and the content of the conclusion is the boldface statement 2.
Premise 2 is not a boldface statement.

Look at the structure of the argument again.

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. - Premise 1

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, - Conclusion

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 - Premise 2
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Posts: 150
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [0]
Given Kudos: 154
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
Isn't the second Bold Face calling the content of the conclusion into question? I understand that the author is in favour of the conclusion, but isn't the specific bold face questioning the success of the conclusion? If so, shouldn't the answer be (D)?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65112 [1]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Isn't the second Bold Face calling the content of the conclusion into question? I understand that the author is in favour of the conclusion, but isn't the specific bold face questioning the success of the conclusion? If so, shouldn't the answer be (D)?
To "call something into question" means to doubt or undermine that thing. The second boldface isn't undermining the conclusion -- it's just stating what the conclusion is actually about.

Exactly as written, the conclusion of this passage is: "The answer, clearly, is yes." This is the main point that the author argues, but it's not particularly useful on its own. In order to understand the author's conclusion, we need to know what the author is actually saying "yes" to!

That "what" is provided in the second boldface. You can reconfigure the conclusion to read: "The answer, clearly, is yes: for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly."

The second boldface contains the details of the author's conclusion, which fits perfectly with (B).

Something that "calls the conclusion into question" would be something that weakens the author's argument. For example, if the passage included information to show that a ton of fossil fuels are used in the new, electricity-powered processes, that might call the author's argument into question.

(D) is out because the second boldface doesn't weaken the author's argument. (B) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
Manager
Joined: 13 Sep 2020
Posts: 111
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]
Given Kudos: 413
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
1
Kudos
GMATNinja Can you help me in understanding how the first BF is supporting the conclusion of the argument. I thought its an in-disputable fact here.

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65112 [2]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
2
Kudos
gagan0303
GMATNinja Can you help me in understanding how the first BF is supporting the conclusion of the argument. I thought its an in-disputable fact here.

A "fact" can play any number of roles in an argument. For example, consider this argument:

"Every time I eat at In-n-Out Burger, I experience horrible indigestion the next day. I had In-n-Out yesterday, so today is going to be rough."

Here, I've listed two statements of fact:

1) "Every time I eat at In-n-Out Burger, I experience horrible indigestion the next day," and
2) "I had In-n-Out yesterday."

But why did I include these facts in my argument? To support the conclusion that "today is going to be rough."

Similarly, when dealing with BF questions you should ask yourself why the author included a particular piece of the argument. The first BF tells you that Delta has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. Why does the author include this information? It serves as a piece of evidence that Delta has reduced its consumption of fossil fuel. Sure, it doesn't prove that the conclusion must be true -- but it does provide some support.

I hope that helps!
Re: Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older [#permalink]
1   2
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7056 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts