arorag wrote:
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing such devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first and the second are both evidence offered by the argument as support for its main conclusion.
(B) The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgment reached by that assessment.
(C) The first is the position the argument seeks to establish; the second is a judgment the argument uses to support that position.
(D) The first is a development that the argument seeks to explain; the second is a prediction the argument makes in support of the explanation it offers.
(E) The first presents a development whose likely outcome is at issue in the argument; the second is a judgment the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome.
I don't have OA for this one.IMO D
So we break down the stimulus
Main conclusion:
Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain. -
a premisePro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. -
Pro-Tect's judgment used to build the argumentTherefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. -
a premiseMany policyholders will respond to the discount by installing such devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. -
a judgment but it is used to support the main conclusion of the argument.[b] cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen -
a premiseOne thing I do not like in this question is that the second bold sentence has both the main conclusion and a premise in it. Generally, even if a sentence has both a premise and a conclusion, only one part is kept bold.
We see option (A) is definitely out.
(B) does explain the roles of the two boldface statements. The first statement is a solution that will not work - so a problem. The argument assesses it and offers an alternate solution - the judgment or conclusion, if you may- in second statement.
(C) is out since the first is not the position the argument is trying to establish. ('position argument is trying to establish' means 'main conclusion')
(D) is out because the first statement is not a development that the argument seeks to explain.
(E) is out because first statement is not a development whose outcome is at issue.
Answer (B).