During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on ca

Question

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims
were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the
number of car-theft policies it carries, so 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 antitheft 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 rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish.

Discuss your approach to solve this CR.

sondenso · Accepted Answer

You should go dig the forum "New to this forum". I think, this stuff is useful. For example, you know what is "consideration", what is "evidence"....
There are some tips useful too.

For the boldface, the first and the key is "Should find out exactly what is the   conclusion"

I go to the New to Verbal Forum, copy and past here!

Principle:   something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact:   something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence:   what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence:   This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below. 
  
Background:   Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration:   Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption:   Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion:   Self-explanatory

Inference:   Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

I don't think you have the correct OA here. Could someone please post a screenshot of the actual question and OA.

The goal is: "protecting itself against continued large payouts"
Strategy 1: reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries
Strategy 2: offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices

So (A) fits.

(C) is incorrect. 
If statement 1 is viewed as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy, what is this "certain strategy"? This consideration actually supports the "alternative strategy" only. 
The "alternative strategy" of course is "offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices".
But (C) talks about two different strategies.

zoltan · Answer

I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused! :twisted:

goalsnr · Answer

I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused! :twisted:

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min. Thats teh whole purpose of this thread. For bold face CRs thi sis teh strategy I use: 1. I pick one of the bold statements- Usually the one I understand clearly. 2. I go through the answers choices and eliminate choices which donot adhere to the statement. For example the statement could serve as an evidence, assumption or conclusion in the argument. I use this knowledge as the basis to eliminate answer choices. 3. I repeat step 2 with other statement. Most of the times this approach works for me. Gmatnub, Sinha, sondeso...do you guys want to explain your approach too?

vishnu440 · Answer

the second statement says that a co. has decided to do the mentioned step ...thus C clearly mentions this part. while A says taht decision has already been adopted and its effectiveness is being analyzed....a minor but substantial difference between A and C
While the first part of options A and C define the first bold part clearly.

KarishmaB · Answer

(C) is wrong. There are two strategies discussed: Reduce policies Offer discount Note that (C) uses "first supports CERTAIN STRATEGY" Which is this strategy? It supports "offers discount" because it says reducing policies is not possible. (C) also says "second adopts an alternative strategy" Now which strategy is this? Second adopts "offers discount" only. It does not adopt an alternative strategy. It adopts the same strategy that first supports. (A) is correct. Look here: during-the-past-year-pro-tect-insurance-company-s-total-64492.html#p1441546

mdmurad · Answer

I think, A cannot be the right answer for the fact that the Insurance Company has only decided to offer a discount, not yet offered a discount. Option A rather says the company already adopted the strategy; A is certainly wrong!

sayantanc2k · Answer

Deciding a strategy can be considered equivalent to adopting it - what you mean is probably implementation. Option A does not mention that the strategy was implemented, only that it was adopted, and how effective the adoption will be is what the passage assesses. option A is alright.

GMATNinja · Answer

Hm, it seems that the GMAT is obsessed with the Pro-Tect Insurance Company: https://gmatclub.com/forum/pro-tect-ins ... 59429.html. Very similar passage, different question format.

This is a tough question, but I'm wondering where the discrepancies in the OA are coming from. Maybe the GMATPrep software is saying one thing, but a Word or pdf file that's floating around on the internet is saying another? I'm not sure.

In any case... what's going on in this passage, and how can we distinguish between A and C? Well, I always like to start these boldfaced questions by making sense of the structure of the passage. In this case, there's a clear conclusion in the passage, for whatever that's worth:

Quote:

Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

The conclusion references Pro-Tect's plan. Great. So what, exactly, is Pro-Tect's plan?

Quote:

Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices

Hm, and that plan happens to be the second boldfaced statement. Cool, now we can compare the second half of (A) and (C). (A) is clear as a bell -- that second boldfaced statement is clearly "the strategy that was adopted" and, based on our glimpse of the conclusion, it is also the strategy "whose effectiveness the argument assesses." (C) isn't terrible, but I'd argue that if we think about the purpose of the passage, the second boldfaced statement is clearly the main strategy being assessed -- not really an "alternative strategy," as (C) suggests.

And what about the first boldfaced statement? Again, (A) is clear as a bell: the statement clearly "rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal." (C) again isn't completely awful, but it's far less connected to the main point of the passage: it's hard to argue that (C) is a "consideration to support adopting a certain strategy," because it doesn't seem to support anything in particular -- it just rules out a different strategy.

_________________

Signature Read More

Mo2men · Answer

Dear Charles,

In BF question, there is always terms such as consideration, judgment, evidence...etc. Where is the best source to describe each term and its location (premise or conclusion) inside argument? or what is your best advice to learn those terms?

Thanks

GMATNinja · Answer

That's a huge question, Mo2men! We'll say a lot more about those sorts of issues in the next few weeks and months.

The short answer is that I've never been convinced that it's all that important to learn a whole ton of terminology for GMAT CR. Sure, you should definitely be able to very precisely identify a conclusion when you read the passage, but I don't think that labeling the rest of the passage with words like "premise" or "consideration" or "judgment" or "intermediary conclusion" is necessarily helpful if you're just trying to understand a nice, normal passage (weaken, strengthen, paradox, assumption, etc.).

And sure, those terms appear in the boldfaced CR questions, but they don't necessarily have super-technical definitions that you need to memorize. In this particular example, "judgment," "evidence," and "strategy" are everyday words with fairly standard definitions. "Consideration" isn't necessarily a word we use all the time, but it doesn't have any special definition here, either: it's just a thought or fact or idea that you're using to make form sort of decision. Nothing too technical.

Of course, everybody learns differently, and for a lot of GMAT test-takers, it's super-helpful to dive into this sort of terminology (conclusion, premise, evidence, etc.). I meet quite a few people who find the breakdowns in PowerScore or e-GMAT or MGMAT useful; I probably meet far more people who don't find the terminology useful at all, but again, everybody is different.

Bottom line: if you want to take a shot at one of those resources, go for it! Again, tons of people find them helpful. But for a really large number of successful GMAT test-takers, the terminology itself isn't worth studying. You just have to get really, really good at comprehending passages, understanding how the argument is structured, and picking up on the nuances of language in the question.

I hope this helps! And again, we'll have a lot more to say about this in upcoming posts.

_________________

Signature Read More

Mo2men · Answer

Thanks lot for your enlightening response. Actually, I agree with you. Through my GMAT study, I realized that verbal is far from being math an d formulas, although I'm en engineer and love them

. However, I want to learn them for only simple reason: only getting myself familiar with BF question terminologies without burning OG questions. I hat to memorize them as it is also waste of time inside the exam to memorize every term. In you opinion, would this be effective? Thanks in advance for your help

GMATNinja · Answer

Ooh, good question. One of the problems with the boldfaced questions is that we really don't have all that many official ones in the practice materials -- what, maybe a total of four or five in the OGs, plus a few more in the GMATPrep Question Pack? I haven't counted, but it's somewhere in that ballpark -- and that's not much. So I completely understand why you'd want to make the most of them, and maybe save them for a later stage of your studies.

Again, I'm not convinced that the terminology used in the boldfaced questions is all that technical, so I'm not sure that there's much that's worth memorizing. It's just that you don't want them to look totally unfamiliar, I guess. So you could spend some time in some of the books I mentioned above, and see if that helps. Or you can just deal with them when the time comes -- in theory, the terms are generally going to be things that you understand without any extra studying, it's just that they might feel a little foreign.

And here's the other option: try practicing with some official LSATs. They can be brutally difficult at times, but depending on your score goals, that might be a good thing for you. And something like 20-30% of the questions at least dabble in some "legalese" terminology that will feel a little bit like the boldfaced questions.

If you can kick butt on the LSAT CR (called "logical reasoning" on the LSAT) and RC, then the GMAT stuff will start to feel easier. And it should help a whole lot with the boldfaced questions -- we give most of our students an aggressive diet of LSAT practice, and very few end up having any troubles on the boldfaced CR when they get there.

gmatimothy · Answer

I get why (A) is the correct answer, but (B) also seems to be a relevant answer here?

"Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way." = "..so cannot protect itself" is a judgment the author made.

"Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices." = using the word "therefore" right after the first sentence, author makes an intermediate conclusion with the support of the previous sentence. Because the Company cannot reduce the number of policies it carries after judging that it cannot protect against large payouts, the Company decided to adopt this discount strategy.

Can someone please help?

GMATNinja · Answer

The question asks us what roles the bolded portions play in the argument as a whole -- in other words, why did the author include each bolded piece? How do they serve the bigger picture of the argument?

(A) captures these roles much better than (B) does. Sure, the second boldface has the word "therefore," but does it act as a conclusion in the bigger picture of the argument? Not really -- it just outlines Pro-Tect's plan, which the author then assesses in his/her  actual  conclusion.

And is the first boldface a "judgment," as written in (B)? Not so much -- it's presented as a fact, not as a judgment. And thinking again about the bigger picture, the author includes the first boldface to indicate that Pro-Tect can't just reduce the number of policies. (A) fits way better -- the author includes the first boldface in order to "rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal."

I hope that helps!

KittyDoodles · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma ,  GMATNinja

I rejected Option A because it states in the second half "the strategy that was adopted" and no where the passage states the strategy was already adopted. Rather it seems that the company is planning to adopt the strategy and thus ended up selecting Option B instead.

Thanks

GMATNinja · Answer

You're correct that the passage never  explicitly  states that Pro-Tect "has adopted" the policy of offering a discount. However, it does tell us that Pro-Tect "has decided to offer a discount." And since they have "decided" on this policy, we know they "have adopted" it.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument -

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. - Problem
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. - Also explaining the problem of choosing a normal solution, which is to reduce the number of car theft policies it carries and opening doors for choosing an alternate solution (providing discounts)
Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. - Pre-Tect's alternative solution or response to the problem. It is important to note that this is not the main conclusion as it says "has decided." This is something that was decided in the past, and the effect still continues, as shown by the present perfect.
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. Response to the alternative solution.
Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. - The main conclusion is that the plan is likely to reduce the annual cost. "is likely" explains the futuristic aspect of the steps we have taken.

Option Elimination -

(A) The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal (OK, it rules out a strategy for reducing the car theft policies); the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses. (Ok. It presents an alternative strategy and furthers the argument, assesses why it'll be successful, followed by the main conclusion)

(B) The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion (It is a fact and not a judgment); the second is that conclusion (BF2 is not a main conclusion)

(C) The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; (No. The first is a fact that rules out a certain strategy, which is reducing the car theft policies. It is in no way supporting the "certain strategy.") the second report a decision to adopt an alternative strategy (It's not a decision, but it presents a strategy. The word "decision" is a distortion. Yes, it has been used in the argument, and if you see the bigger picture, the statement just does not say that we have decided, period. It presents an alternative strategy, which is to offer discounts..... ).

(D) The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal (No, it rules out the "certain strategy," which is reducing the number of car theft policies); the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal. (No. The goal remains the same, which is to reduce the annual cost. It just presents an alternative strategy to pursue the same goal.)

(E) The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal (ok); the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish. (the BF2 is not the main conclusion).

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm: Context: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Premises: 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 antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen.  Conclusion: Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. The argument gives us the bleak situation of last year and then tells us that a certain strategy to recover will not work. Then it tells us about the other strategy that the company is using and why that is likely to succeed. The first boldface gives us the first strategy that the company rejected and the second boldface gives us the second strategy that the company has adopted. The conclusion tells us that the second strategy is likely to succeed. (A) The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses. Correct. Exactly as discussed above. The goal of the company is to reduce its annual payouts. The argument discusses two strategies to achieve this goal. (B) The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion. Both incorrect. (C) The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy. The first is not a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy. It is suggesting that the strategy cannot be adopted. (D) The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal. The first is not evidence to support adopting a certain strategy. It is suggesting that the strategy cannot be adopted. (E) The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish. The first is not a consideration against adopting a certain strategy. It is suggesting that a certain strategy cannot be adopted. The second is not the main conclusion. It is the second strategy that is adopted. Answer (A) Discussion on Boldface Questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on ca

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on ca

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