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

Check out our earlier analysis of this issue and let us know whether that clears things up!

Can you please throw some light that why and how option A is incorrect? VeritasKarishma

A) says that the second boldface 'provides support for that conclusion.' What does the second boldface say? Well it's the content of a question the passage is introducing: that maybe Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel consumption per level of output. A 'premise' is something that supports the conclusion--this second boldfaced sentence isn't even something we know is true! It's what the passage is asking. How can the passage ask if something is true and then use it support a conclusion?

A also says the first bold identifies the 'content of the conclusion.' That presumably means "The first boldface identifies what the conclusion is about.' So is the conclusion about switching from fossil fuel technology to new technology? Is the argument trying to convince us that THIS is true, and giving support for why we should believe Delta Products has made that switch?

No. The switch is given as a fact. The question is if that switch allows us to conclude that Delta uses less fossil fuel per level of output than before. The author says we CAN conclude that, and gives a second premise why.

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.

KarishmaB
A few questions:
1.) Would you be able to point to another Critical Reasoning question that is similar? I was a bit thrown off by the other way you mentioned in which the OG can set up a conclusion (Can we conclude X? Yes we can).

2.) Why is the first boldface not just considered background information. What exactly makes it a premise?

3.) Would the second boldface be correct if it read "the second statement calls the argument's MAIN conclusion into question"?

Thank you for always being so helpful and responsive. You are truly amazing

Note the two arguments given below.

Argument 1:

D has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. 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.
Hence, for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.


Argument 2:
D has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. 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.
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.

Are they different? The author essentially puts the same points forward in both. He gives two premises and on the basis of those, he concludes that D now causes less fossil fuel consumption. It doesn't matter how he frames the conclusion. It can be framed in whatever way the author wants but we know exactly what info it gives. It tells us that he thinks that D's operation now causes less fossil fuel consumption.

The first BF is a premise because the conclusion is "Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly."
So one would ask "why do you think so?"
And the answer would be "because Delta recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity... " etc


The second BF does not call the main conclusion into question. What that means is that it weakens the main conclusion of the argument i.e. it makes us doubt the main conclusion. That is not correct. The second BF is the content of the main conclusion. It is framed as a question but that doesn't change anything. When we "question something," it means we are wondering whether it holds or not.

Hello experts,

I chose the right answer, which I like more than E, but I don't have clear reason to eliminate E, which says- each provide support for the conclusion of the argument.
BF-1 provide support because it sets the context of the argument, hence it is a required fact.

1. BF2 isn't also provide support in a sense? based on this BF, the conclusion exists (yes,). as rightly said by choice B, it also provide content of the conclusion, which is a question aswered by the conclusion. so BF2 is supportive to the conclusion.

2. It took me 4:30 mins to complete this, I found that I take 4+ mins to solve every hard BF question, because each one of them presents convoluted argument(which is why they are hard). typically I write symbols for each statement as (f-fact, O-opinion and s-support or a -against). take time to deconstruct the argument. i take longer to read argument by this way but elimination is quicker (helps in easy-med question). this one fails in harder BF question. Is there a better strategy?

Understand the Passage

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.A company, Delta Products Inc., has partly switched from older technologies (which used fossil fuels) to new technologies (which use 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.A question has been raised. The question is whether the company consumes less fossil fuel now than it did before, for the same level of output. (Here, you should take a pause and understand why such a question might be raised. The new technologies run on electricity. Then, why are we talking about fossil fuel consumption now? The underlying assumption/reasoning is that the production of electricity requires fossil fuels. So, even though the new technologies run on electricity, they also consume fossil fuel indirectly. Now, the question is whether new technologies consume less fossil fuels than older technologies.)

The answer, clearly, is yes. This part is the conclusion of the argument since the following statement supports this statement. The earlier two statements set the background for this conclusion. Of course, this statement makes sense only within the context of the previous statement. Without knowing what the question is, saying ‘the answer is yes’ will not make sense. In a way, the conclusion is that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

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.This statement supports the conclusion (the reasoning indicator ‘since’ also suggests the same). It says that for a given level of output, the amount of fossil fuel needed to generate electricity to power new technologies is than the amount of fossil fuels needed to power the older technologies.

Predict an Answer

From the passage understanding above, we can note that BF1 is a fact and provides background to the argument. BF2 is an area on which a question has been raised, and the main conclusion of the argument agrees with BF2 (Rather, in a way, BF2 is the conclusion of the argument).

Option Analysis

(A) Incorrect. Both the first and the second parts of this option are wrong.

BF1 does not identify the content of the conclusion. It is just background information for the argument.

BF2 does not provide support for BF1. Rather, BF1 is not supported by anything in the argument. Also, BF2 doesn’t even support the conclusion of the argument. BF2 itself, in a way, is the conclusion of the argument.

(B) Correct. Both parts of this option are correct.

BF1 provides background information for the conclusion. In a way that the conclusion will not make sense without this background information, we can say that BF1 supports the conclusion.

BF2 is indeed the content of the conclusion. The conclusion is ‘the answer is yes’. However, what ‘the answer is yes’ means is given in BF2.

(C) Incorrect. Both the first and the second parts of this option are wrong.

BF1 is not the conclusion of the argument. BF2 doesn’t call BF1 into question. BF2 rather itself is equivalent to the conclusion of the argument.

(D) Incorrect. The first part of this option is correct, but the second part is incorrect.

The first part of this option is same as the first part of option B and is thus correct for the same reason mentioned in the analysis of option B.

Since BF2 doesn’t call the conclusion of the argument into question, the second part is incorrect.

(E) Incorrect. While BF1 does provide support for the conclusion of the argument (as explained in the analysis of option B), BF2 does not. Rather, BF2 is equivalent to the conclusion of the argument.

Support for a conclusion has to be some kind of evidence outside of the conclusion itself. So, "the content of a conclusion" cannot be the same as "support for a conclusion."

Here's the second boldface: "for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly." This isn't an outside piece of evidence that supports the conclusion -- it IS the content of the conclusion itself. This passage just phrases this content as a question, and then confirms it with a "yes."

Because the second boldface doesn't offer evidence outside of the conclusion, (E) is out.

For more on how to approach boldface CR questions, check out this video.

I hope that helps!

Here's a simple question for those who are trying to justify the the answer choice B:
if that first sentence is there to provide support for the conclusion, then removing it would weaken the conclusion right? But now remove the first part and read the argument again! No Weakening. None of the choices are correct IMO.

By definition: "A writer making a logical argument uses foundational evidence called a premise to support a conclusion that they assert to be true."
So the first boldface does indeed support the conclusion since it is a premise.

To reply to your claim that removing the premise weakens the conclusion, I present to you the definition of a conclusion: “a sentence that is supported by another sentence."
In other words, "a conclusion is a conclusion only in so far as it is supported by another sentence". So if we remove the premise, as you say, then there is no weakening of the conclusion, since there will be no conclusion in the first place.

This question is pretty hard, so I had the same doubts as well. But after some research, I came up with this and am now convinced that B is correct.

Here is the video solution to this problem along with a discussion on how to handle Boldface questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY