Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drast

Question

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically.  Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years  because water is being used faster than it can be replenished. Since the price of tap water has been low,  few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measures .

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the economist's argument?

(A) The first is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the main conclusion; the second is the main conclusion.
(B) The first is an observation for which the second provides an explanation; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.
(C) The first is a premise supporting the argument's main conclusion; so is the second.
(D) The first is the only conclusion; the second provides an explanation for the first.
(E) The first is the main conclusion; the second is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the first.

Situation 
Local water supplies have been declining for years because of excessive water use and low prices. Few users have adopted even easy conservation measures.

Reasoning 
 What roles do the two boldface statements play in the argument?  Both are factual observations. Since no further evidence or support is provided for either, neither can be a conclusion in the argument. However, interconnected causal explanations, signaled by  because  and  since , are provided for both. The observation in the first boldface statement is causally explained by the further observation that water is being used faster than it can be replenished, which in turn is causally explained by the entire final sentence. The observation in the second boldface statement is causally explained by the observation that the price of tap water has been low. The only remaining portion of the argument is the initial sentence, a recommendation supported by these four observations together, and by the causal claims in which they are embedded. Thus, the four observations (including the two boldface statements) and the causal claims containing them are all premises, and the initial statement is the argument's only conclusion.

(A) As explained above, the two boldface statements are premises of the argument. Although causal explanations are provided for both, no support or evidence is provided for either.

(B) As explained above, the second boldface statement does provide part of the causal explanation for the observation in the first boldface statement. But no support is provided for either statement, so neither is a conclusion.

(C) Correct . As explained above, each of the statements is a premise that serves along with other claims to support the recommendation in the initial sentence, which is the argument's only conclusion, and in that sense its main conclusion.

(D) As explained above, the second boldface statement does provide part of the causal explanation for the observation in the first boldface statement. But no support is provided for either statement, so neither is a conclusion in the argument.

(E) As explained above, the two boldface statements are premises of the argument. Although causal explanations are provided for both, no support or evidence is provided for either.

redskull1 · Answer

guptakashish02

For BF please watch Rons video dated June 9,2016.

He decimates the heck out of this category. If, hypothetically, we show that video to any BF question, that question after watching the video will be like "What the heck is my purpose in life, I just do not know.."

Back to this question...

We are bothered about the main conclusion.The main conclusion is THE CONCLUSION of the argument.The rest of the conclusion are premises.

The main conclusion here is quite clearly the first statement.The other 2 BFs support it.

Cheers.Pls thank Ron

guptakashish02 · Answer

redskull1 
Thanks for the help.
Can you give me the link for Rons video.

redskull1 · Answer

google ron videos.Click on the first link

prototypevenom · Answer

---------------------------------------
 hazelnut  I agree with you, but...
C. The first is a premise supporting the argument's main conclusion; so  is the second .

so is the second implies Boldface2 is also a premise but it is not, it is rather another conclusion

I made a chart to show this.

https://image.prntscr.com/image/txQosGV-Sey8t6fu4jRo7Q.png 
 please explain

wuamsicle · Answer

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically. Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years because water is being used faster than it can be replenished. Since the price of tap water has been low, few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measure.

Premise 1: water used faster than replenished -> Freshwater decreasing -> should raise price of water
Premise 2: tap water price low -> no one conserves -> Premise 1 -> should raise price of water

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the economist's argument?

(A) The first is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the main conclusion; the second is the main conclusion.  first part is true, second part is another conclusion not support  
(B) The first is an observation for which the second provides an explanation; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.   first is not an observation but rather than conclusion that the observations led to; second is a conclusion but not main  
(C) The first is a premise supporting the argument's main conclusion; so is the second.  both are true! WINNER 
(D) The first is the only conclusion; the second provides an explanation for the first.  first is not only conclusion 
(E) The first is the main conclusion; the second is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the first.  first is not main conclusion, it is a conclusion, but second part is true

rszarate · Answer

Hi guys,

BF1: Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years
BF2: few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measure

I don't understand why BF1 and BF2 are not conclusions if both have premises (with trigger words  because  and  since) :
" because  water is being used faster than it can be replenished" for BF1 and 
" Since  the price of tap water has been low" for BF2

Thank you in advance!

Cheers,
R.

LoneSurvivor · Answer

Conclusion is the first sentence .

MHIKER · Answer

Both are the premises of giving information on which the main conclusion" The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically"

egmat · Answer

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically.

An economist is putting forth her views on the pricing of tap water. This is also the conclusion of the passage.
In her opinion, the price of tap water in the region to which she belongs should be greatly/significantly increased.

Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years 
 
She provides an observation here – water supply in the local freshwater reservoirs has been decreasing for the past many years.

because water is being used faster than it can be replenished.
 
And this is because water is being used up at a faster pace than the pace at which it can be put back.

Since the price of tap water has been low,  few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measures. 
 
The economist offers an explanation as to why hardly any users have taken the trouble to adopt even the simplest of water-saving techniques.
And the reason behind this has been the low price of tap water.

All in all, the economist substantiates her claim that the price of tap water should be considerably raised via the following thought process:

Supply of tap water is decreasing yet people use water recklessly (not conserving), because the price of tap water is low. So, if the price is raised considerably, then the people might start using tap water with more care and concern and eventually a balance might be brought about between the demand and supply of tap water.

Pre-thinking

1st Bold Face
Role = Observation
Relationship = Used to support the conclusion.

2nd Bold Face
Role = Observation
Relationship = Used to support the conclusion.

Answer Choice Analysis

Option A - The first is just an observation used as a support, not a conclusion. Incorrect

Option B - The first BF is not supported by the second BF. Incorrect

Option C - This choice is line with our pre-thinking. CORRECT

Option D - The first is not a conclusion. Incorrect

Option E - The first is not a conclusion, therefore, it cannot be the main conclusion. Incorrect.

Hope this helps

CEdward · Answer

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically. Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years because water is being used faster than it can be replenished. Since the price of tap water has been low, few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measures.

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the economist's argument?

(A) The first is a  conclusion    for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the main conclusion; the  second is the main conclusion   .
BF1 is a premise in the argument which supports the main conclusion: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically. BF2 is also a premise. Why? Both support the argument that the price of tap water should be raised…we learn that a) supplies of water have been declining, and people couldn’t be bothered to conserve water.
(B) The first is an observation for which the second provides an explanation; the  second is the main conclusion    but not the only conclusion.
(C) The first is a premise supporting the argument's main conclusion; so is the second. 
Correct
(D) The first is the  only conclusion ; the second provides an explanation for the first.
BF1 is not a conclusion
(E) The first is the   main conclusion  ; the  second is a conclusion    for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the first.
BF1 is not a conclusion, neither is BF2

piyushluniya · Answer

Hi  guptakashish02 
Conclusion is what author intends to convey through the passage.
BF1 and BF2 are both facts/evidence here, which support the intention of the message that the author is trying to convey.

aryamaagarwal · Answer

I am struggling to understand why bf2 is not an intermediate conclusion?
"Since" the price of tap water has been low, few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measures.

As we have got a since over here, wouldn't that mean that bf2 is a conclusion (not the main one though)?

GMATNinja · Answer

We're looking for the best of the five options, which might look a bit different than the exact way that you'd write the correct answer choice. Here, (C) is the only option that fits. There is a strong reason to get rid of all of the other answer choices, and at the end of the day, both boldface sections are there to support the author's main conclusion. If there were another answer choice that correctly labeled BF1 and also called the 2nd BF an intermediate conclusion, then this discussion would be relevant -- but here, it's enough to eliminate the other options and go with (C) as the only one that works.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  zhanbo   ReedArnoldMPREP   ChiranjeevSingh   AnishPassi   RonTargetTestPrep

Do you see (BF1) and (BF2) each as  intermediate conclusions  ? I see each of them as IC's.

Why ? Because (BF1) and (BF2) are both supported

(a) BF1 is supported by the phrase "  because water is being used faster than it can be replenished  "
(b) BF2 is supported by the phrase " Since the price of tap water has been low "

Thus, I thought of (BF1) and (BF2) as intermediate conclusions.

As you know IC's can be though of as premises.

Both these intermediate conclusions are then supporting the main conclusion (The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically)

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  AnishPassi  - While I elimated (a), i disagree on your reason for eliminating (A)

Specifically, I dont understand what you mean by the yellow highlight below - How are you so confident that the " reason doesn’t support the fact that it is happening " ?

I thought BF1 is supported based on phrase   "because water is being used faster than it can be replenished"

I see the example regarding the Sun  . But I am not able to understand what is going on and how the Sun example relates back to the original argument.

If i try making some examples

In each case, what comes after the "because" is the REASON for  why I appear fat  and/or The reason for  why Stock price is declining

zhanbo · Answer

Hi,  jabhatta2 ,

The main conclusion (sometimes simply called conclusion, but conclusion may also refer to intermediate conclusion) is the very sentence. There is only one main conclusion.

You are right BF1 and BF2 are both intermediate conclusions.

An intermediate conclusion
> is supported by one or more premises. 
> is used to support another, almost always the main, conclusion. For this reason,  an intermediate conclusion is also a premise.

Answer (C) appropriately identify both as premises and is thus the correct answer.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  zhanbo  - thank you for your response.

Just wondering on your thoughts on how another expert has eliminated (A) ?

Strategy to Eliminate (A)

Just curious if you could elaborate on the 'yellow bit' as I dont seem to follow the startegy used to eliminate (A)

If you dont have any viewpoint, I completely understand, so feel free to say so.

I have asked the original expert in question but I think the expert may not be active on GMATCLUB any longer.

AnishPassi · Answer

Hi jabhatta2, Let’s take your second example: There are two ideas here: 1. The stock price is declining. 2. The CEO is bad at making decisions. You’re right: Idea 2 is indeed the reason for idea 1. I think our disagreement stems from the word ‘support’. Does idea 2 support idea 1? I think not. Let me try to explain using your example: Let’s say you initially only read the first half of the sentence: The stock price is declining. 1. After reading, do you have any doubt about whether the stock price is declining? Could it be the case that the stock price is actually not declining? The way I see it: The stock price IS declining. So, it is a fact that the stock price is declining. Do you agree? Now we add the second half to the mix. 2. We’re then given a reason for why it’s happening. Once you learn that the CEO is bad at making decisions, do you believe more than before that the stock price is declining? The way I see it: We already know that the price is declining. Learning the reason does not increase my confidence in the notion that the stock price is declining. Or put another way, if we did not have the info that the CEO is bad at decision making, would your belief go down in the idea that the stock price is rising? I think not. The stock price is rising. There’s no doubt about that. That’s why the second idea doesn’t support the first. The same thing in the main passage too. "Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years". Isn't this a factual piece of information? Could it be the case that supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have actually NOT been declining for years? I think not. So, we're given a fact here. And then we're given a reason for why that has been happening. That's not an argument. Does that make sense? And, I am active on GMAT Club. Just that I am not very regular, and certainly a lot less prompt than many others

zhanbo · Answer

(A)  The first is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the main conclusion ;  the second is the main conclusion .

Hi,  jabhatta2 ,

I eliminate (A) because the second part is wrong. The main conclusion is the first sentence. 
Now, for the first part, it is correct. It would be nice to say "the first is an intermediate conclusion" to avoid any possible confusion with the (main) conclusion. But it is clearly the intermediate one because it "in turn supports the main conclusion".

An intermediate conclusion is both a conclusion and a premise.

Because support is provided, the first is not simply a fact. If the support were removed, the first would be a fact.

MBAcandidate1005 · Answer

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically.  Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years  because water is being used faster than it can be replenished. Since the price of tap water has been low,  few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measures .

The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the economist's argument?

(A) The first is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the main conclusion; the second is the main conclusion.
(B) The first is an observation for which the second provides an explanation; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.
(C) The first is a premise supporting the argument's main conclusion; so is the second.
(D) The first is the only conclusion; the second provides an explanation for the first.
(E) The first is the main conclusion; the second is a conclusion for which support is provided, and which in turn supports the first.

Simply stated the economist wants us to believe that the price for tap water in the region should be raised drastically. That is an opinion/suggestion. In the next statement we realize he provides support for such opinion. So first boldface is definitely not the main conclusion and acts as a support or premise for the first statement. in last sentence he says that since price has been low, no one is bothered about it, another reasons for him to state the first sentence clearly. Thus this statemen is also in support of what now is confirmed as the main conclusion of the passage. Eliminated options accordingly and chose C

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drast

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drast

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

My Rewards