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

google ron videos.Click on the first link

---------------------------------------
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.


please explain

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

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.

Conclusion is the first sentence .

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

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
_________________

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
_________________

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.

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)?
_________________

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!
_________________

Economist: The price of tap water in our region should be raised drastically.
The economist makes a strong claim in this statement. The price of tap water should be raised drastically.
(He’ll probably share reasons for why he believes the price needs an overhaul. Let’s find out.)

Supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years because water is being used faster than it can be replenished.
Right. So this sentence starts with a reason for why the price should be raised.
The reason: the supply of tap water has been declining for years (I gather that local freshwater reservoirs form the supply to tap water.)

The statement also gives us a reason for why local freshwater reservoirs have been depleting.
The reason: Water is being used too fast.

Since the price of tap water has been low, few users have bothered to adopt even easy conservation measures.
Now we understand why supplies in reservoirs have been declining.
The reason: Users haven’t bothered to converse water – pretty much at all.

The statement also gives us a reason for why users haven’t bothered.
The reason: Tap water is too cheap.

Gist:
Tap water has been cheap.
(That’s why) users haven’t bothered to conserve water. (BF2)
(That’s why) water is being used faster than it can be replenished.
(That’s why) supplies in local reservoirs have been declining. (BF1)

(To avoid all this,) the price of tap water should be raised drastically. (main point)

The argument is essentially a Jenga tower with one idea stacked on top of another. Where the previous one is the reason for the following one. The main point is that if the first tile is removed (tap water is made expensive), the tower will fall.





The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the economist’s argument?
Both the sections in boldface are tiles in the Jenga tower and provide support for the main point.





(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.
Incorrect.
1. There is no support provided for BF1. The idea that ‘supplies in local freshwater reservoirs have been declining for years’ is a fact. This decline has actually been happening. The author does not indicate any uncertainty about this. Since BF1 is a fact, it cannot be a conclusion, nor can it be supported by another statement.

Sure, there is a reason given for why it is happening, but that reason doesn’t support the fact that it is happening.

e.g.
The sun appears round because it is a sphere.

This sentence is made up of two ideas:

• The sun appears round
• The sun is a sphere

Both these ideas are facts. The sun does appear round. The sun is a sphere. The second idea is the reason for the first idea. However, it does not provide support for the first idea. We already know that the sun appears round. After learning that the sun is a sphere, my confidence does not increase in the notion that the sun appears round.

BF1 does support the main conclusion. But because of the above reason, the first half is wrong.

2. BF2 is not the main conclusion. The main conclusion is that the price of tap water should be raised drastically. BF2 supports the main point. The second half is wrong

(B) The first is an observation for which the second provides an explanation; the second is the main conclusion but not the only conclusion.
Incorrect.

1. BF2 does provide an explanation for BF1. The first half is correct.
2. BF2 is not a conclusion at all. The second half is wrong.

(C) The first is a premise supporting the argument's main conclusion; so is the second.
Correct.

1. As discussed in the gist above, BF1 does support the argument’s main conclusion.
2. BF2 also supports the main conclusion. One way to understand this is that if users had conserved water (negation of BF2), there would be less reason to raise the price of tap water drastically.

(D) The first is the only conclusion; the second provides an explanation for the first.
Incorrect.

1. It is a fact that supplies in local reservoirs have been declining. BF1 is not a conclusion. Moreover, even if it had been a conclusion, it wouldn’t have been the ONLY one. The first statement – the price of tap water should be raised drastically – is the argument’s main point. This half is wrong.
2. BF2 does provide an explanation for BF1. This half is correct.

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

1. It is a fact that supplies in local reservoirs have been declining. BF1 is not a conclusion. Wrong.
2. BF2 is not a conclusion. It is a fact that users haven’t bothered to conserve water. We are given a reason for why that’s happened. However, there is no support for it. (I have highlighted the difference between ‘reason’ and ‘support’ in the explanation of option A). BF2 does support BF1. Wrong.

_________________

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)

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 [sphere vs round]. 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

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.

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.

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
_________________

(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.

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