During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total

Question

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.

Same argument but different boldface .

I don't have OA for this one.IMO D

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

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 premise 
 Pro-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 argument 
Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. -  a premise 
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. -  a judgment but it is used to support the main conclusion of the argument. 
  cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen -  a premise

One 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).

nikhiljain05 · Answer

IMO "E"

vbalex · Answer

The second is a conclusion, so i think is B.

spriya · Answer

First and second are two different scenarios infact opposing ones 
First is the concln that argument rejects , second is a premise+concl which argument concludes

stallone · Answer

i think it shud be B

as he first sentence is a problem (i dnt think we can call it a development)

and the last is just a prediction which is based on the assesment that people will respond +vely to the company's new policy

jkaustubh · Answer

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 policy holders 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 conlusion.
B. The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgement reached by that assessment.
C. The first is the position the argument seeks to explain; the second is a judgement 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 judgement the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome.

aditya8062 · Answer

it has to be B   :   The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgement reached by that assessment.

jkaustubh · Answer

The second boldface sentence, says

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

now the first part suggests that this is a judgement, but the second part of the sentence also declares that the plan is likely to reduce the annual payouts.

We can't say with full assurance that the payouts will reduce.

The second part only predicts that there may be a reduction in the annual payouts. I am unable to select the final answer. Its between B and D

aditya8062 · Answer

i wonder why u sud think D as contender 
D says  :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.

D's 1st part is wrong .

read is nicely :it says  judgment  reached  by that assessment   .likeliness or no likeliness is just the inclination of that judgment !!

Carcass · Answer

I would go with A because both support the main conclusion: therefore is the signal of the same in the third sentence.

But the first one use the word cannot so and the context suggest me a problem that the company present. In the second one the word because is a judgment.....

I go for B

plaverbach · Answer

As a non native speaker, I could not understand the alternative B. Can someone rephrase it for me? =)

arkle · Answer

(B)The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgment reached by that assessment.

The first statement says that this is a problem - Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. - whose solution we are trying to find in subsequent arguments. That is the case because subsequent statements talk about solving the problem. The second is a judgement means conclusion that we reached after the analysis.

Here is a brief analysis of all the options -

(A) The first and the second are both evidence offered by the argument as support for its main conclusion.

Incorrect. Second is the main conclusion of the question and it doesn't give any evidence. First is also not an evidence technically.

(B) The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgment reached by that assessment.

Correct. Explained above.

(C)The first is the position the argument seeks to establish; the second is a judgment the argument uses to support that position.

Incorrect. The first is not the position the argument seeks to establish i.e. First statement is not the conclusion of the argument. Second is the judgement used to support first --> wrong. Second is the main conclusion.

(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.

The first is not a development and subsquent arguements don't explain anything. The first BF is left by itself. Next statements introduce new issues altogether.

(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. - same as (D)

Pronz · Answer

(B) CORRECT. Aptly suggests that boldface 1 is the problem and bold-face the conclusion to that problem

(C) Indicates boldface 1 to be the conclusion.

(D) The second bold-face is not a prediction but the conclusion. The prediction in the para is “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.”

(E) Indicates that neither of the bold-faces form the conclusion. We know this to be incorrect.

AdityaHongunti · Answer

Veritasprepkarishma

Could you please explain what is a development . Or which part can be called a development?

Posted from my mobile device

zac123 · Answer

hi @Veritasprepkarishma

Could you please explain what is a development . Or which part can be called a development?

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

KarishmaB  hi expert, the same as adobe question, could you explain why BF1 is not a development? I can’t understand the exact meaning of these abstract words. Thanks in advance.

KarishmaB · Answer

A development is something that has happened in the recent times. 
For example, 'in the past 6 months, the interest rate has doubled' or 'in the past one year, many new covid vaccines have been developed' or 'the products of company XYZ are becoming popular since XYZ started its new marketing campaign.'

So consider BF1:
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way.

Is it a development? No.

Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way  - problem
 Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices.   - response to the problem and the argument assesses this response
 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  - Argument assessing the response
 Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts  - Judgment on the response

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.

We can use the therefore test here -
Say
Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices, SO Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts or
Pro-Tect's plan (plan of antitheft devices) is likely to reduce its annual payouts, SO Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices.
The first one makes sense because the first introduces what the plan is - the plan is to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices, then assesses why the plan will succeed (as the discount covers the cost) and as a result of that plan and surely of a positive response from the customers, Pro-Tect is likely to reduce its annual payouts.
The 2nd one doesn't make sense. We don't know what the plan is, and we don't know if that plan will succeed, but somehow, we say the plan is likely (futuristic) to reduce cost, so let's implement the plan (that, by the way, has been implemented).

Understanding the main conclusion is important as it'll help to eliminate some options.

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. - No. The second is the main conclusion.

(B) The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses (the word assess is a bit confusing as typically asses means finding +ves and -ves and then opinion. The only way I can explain it is that the first boldface highlights the problem with choosing the normal solution to solve the problem mentioned in statement 1, which is that the total payout on car theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain. So, as a response to this problem, the argument shares an alternative solution, which is offering discounts....and then the argument further checks the possible response to an alternate solution that the users will respond positively. Why? Because the discount covers the cost in 2 years. A lot to unpack here); the second is the judgment reached by that assessment. (Ok)

(C) The first is the position the argument seeks to establish; (the first is not the main conclusion) the second is a judgment the argument uses to support that position. (The 2nd BF is not supporting BF1)

(D) The first is a development that the argument seeks to explain (the first is not a development but a problem with the normal solution); the second is a prediction the argument makes in support of the explanation it offers. (The BF2 does not support the explanation. It is a result of the alternative solution.)

(E) The first presents a development whose likely outcome is at issue in the argument (first, the BF1 is not a development. It highlights the problem with the normal solution. The outcome of the acknowledgment that the problem of normal solution will not solve the main problem (statement 1) is the alternative solution. The alternative solution is not the issue in the argument); the second is a judgment the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome. (the 2nd is the conclusion of the outcome and not the support.)

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

First boldface portion:
" Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain. "
 
 This is a  statement of fact  describing the  problem  that motivates Pro-Tect to take action. 
 It  sets up the need  for the plan or conclusion.  
Second boldface portion:
" Because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. "
 
 This is a  premise supporting the argument’s conclusion  (that Pro-Tect’s plan will work). 
 It’s  evidence  that justifies why the plan will reduce payouts.

B accurately states the analysis

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total

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

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