Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional

Question

Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest. --- Fact

Such approval is denied if the commander judges that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient. --- fact

1. A government efficiency expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce. --- situation

The expert has therefore recommended that, 2. because the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted,---- opinion

the watch commander’s approval no longer be required. --- proposal

This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous, --- opinion/recommendation/conclusion

however, since there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required. --- contradiction/ explanation / main conclusion

best answer - (C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was used to support the proposal.

In the editorial, the two portions in  boldface  play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a claim, the accuracy of which is disputed by the editorial; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the editorial.

(B) The first is an observation that the editorial disputes; the second is a conclusion that was drawn from that observation.

(C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was used to support the proposal.

(D) The first is a finding introduced to support the main conclusion of the editorial; the second is that main conclusion.

(E) The first is a conclusion, the evidence for which the editorial evaluates; the second is part of the evidence cited in favor of that conclusion.

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 232: Critical Reasoning 
 Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:   E-mail  |  RSS 
 For All QOTD Questions  Click Here

Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question 
Question No.: 48
Page: 135

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

When dealing with BF questions, it is useful to first ignore the boldface and analyze the passage just like any other. Let's start by identifying the conclusion: "This recommendation {that the watch commander’s approval no longer be required} should be rejected as dangerous."

Now let's breakdown the argument. Again, ignore the boldface for now. The first two sentences just give us some background information:

"An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest." - Pretty straightforward. When a Midville police officer makes an arrest, that arrest is considered provisional until the watch commander approves the arrest. 
 Why might the watch commander  deny  such approval? If the commander judges "that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient."

Now let's get into the meat of the argument:

"A government efficiency expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce." - We know that the watch commander can deny arrest approval if the standards for adequacy of evidence are not met. But, according to the finding, almost all provisional arrests meet those standards. This implies that almost all provisional arrests should be approved by the watch commander. 
 "The expert has therefore recommended that, because the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted, the watch commander’s approval no longer be required." - The officers have to take time out of their days to obtain arrest approvals. Almost all of the arrests meet the evidence standards. So, according to the  expert  (NOT according to the author), obtaining arrest approval is a waste of time, and the watch commander's approval should no longer be required. Why bother if nearly all of the arrests should be approved anyway? According to the expert, the Midville Police Department (MPD) should skip that step, saving the officers' valuable time. 
 But the author isn't so sure about this recommendation and believes that it should be rejected as dangerous? Why? 
 "Since there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required." - Good point. When approval is required, most arrests meet the standards. But if the approval is NOT required, the officers might not try as hard to ensure that their arrests meet those standards. If their arrests do not require approval, then the officers have no incentive to meet those standards. Why go out of their way to meet the standards if nobody is going to check anyway?

Now that we understand the structure of the argument, it will be much easier to identify the roles of the boldfaced portions:

The author does not dispute the  accuracy  of the first BF portion, so the first part of (A) is inaccurate. Also, the second BF portion does not support the author's conclusion. Rather, it supports the expert's recommendation. Eliminate (A).

Again, the author does not dispute this observation. The second part of (B) might be okay, but the first part is definitely inaccurate. Eliminate (B).

Remember, the third and fourth sentences describe the  government efficiency expert's  point of view, not the author's point of view. The expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards. This finding supports the expert's recommendation, so the first part looks good.

The expert believes that obtaining arrest approval is a waste of the officers' time. This judgment is thus based on the finding that most of the arrests meet the standards. The judgement is also used to support the expert's recommendation. In other words, most of the arrests meet the evidence standards, so why bother?

Choice (C) looks good.

The first is a finding that supports the  expert's  point of view, not the main conclusion of the editorial. The second is the expert's opinion and is definitely not the main conclusion of the editorial. Eliminate (D).

The first is a finding, not a conclusion. Regardless, the editorial does not  evaluate  this statement. The second is a judgment, not evidence, and it does not  support  the first BF portion. Eliminate (E).

(C) is the best option.

rashminet84 · Answer

C for sure
If you dissect the whole paragraph into logical parts, you have the first bold face as evidence/fact based on which a proposal is made, and the author's main intention is to oppose this proposal. So main conclusion is refuting the proposal
The second part is a judgement or a reasoning given which supports the proposal made.

ChrisLele · Answer

For this question it is key to discern the difference between the argument (the efficiency expert's recommendation) and the editorial, which disagrees with the argument set forth by the efficiency expert.

The argument is that the watch commander is superfluous because he/she approves almost all of the provisional arrests.

The bold-faced parts are as follows:

1) almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce.

2) the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted

Conclusion of expert : the watch commander's approval is no longe required.

Conclusion of editorial : the expert is wrong because without a watch commander's approval standards will become more lax.

The first point is a premise that helps efficiency expert draw his/her conclusion. The second point, however, is not the conclusion, but instead also undergirds the expert's conclusion: if the officers' time is wasted, then his/her role should be discontinued.

We will see this recapitulated in the language of (C):

(C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial
opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was
used to support the proposal. ANSWER

(D) is incorrect because it says that 1) is used to support the editorial's conclusion. However 1) is used to support the efficiency expert's conclusion.

Kurtosis · Answer

Question Type: Bold Face

Argument: The expert's recommendation (watch commander's approval is not required) should be rejected.

(A) The first is a claim, the accuracy of which is disputed by the editorial; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the editorial. - BF1 is not disputed by the editorial

(B) The first is an observation that the editorial disputes; the second is a conclusion that was drawn from that observation. - Same as A.

(C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial
opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was
used to support the proposal. ANSWER

(D) The first is a finding introduced to support the main conclusion of the editorial; the second is that main conclusion. - BF2 is not a conclusion.

(E) The first is a conclusion, the evidence for which the editorial evaluates; the second is part of the evidence cited in favor of that conclusion. - BF1 is not a conclusion.

Answer: C

aragonn · Answer

Editorial : An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest. ---  Fact

Such approval is denied if the commander judges that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient. ---  fact

1. A government efficiency expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce. ---  situation

The expert has therefore recommended that, 2. because the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted,----  opinion

the watch commander’s approval no longer be required. ---  proposal

This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous, ---  opinion/recommendation/conclusion

however, since there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required. ---  contradiction/ explanation / main conclusion

best answer - (C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was used to support the proposal.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let’s look at the stimulus given-

An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest.
Such approval is denied if the commander judges that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient.
A government efficiency expert  has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce. 
 (Recommendation/ opinion/ conclusion of the gvt. Expert) - the watch commander’s approval no longer be required. 
 Why? Reason?

because the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted,

Editor’s conclusion/opinion-  
This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous,

Why? Reason? 
since there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required.

Identifying these elements in the argument makes the POE a lot easier.

We have identified that the second BF statement provides  support  to the govt. expert’s conclusion and is not the expert’s conclusion or the main conclusion of the argument.

Eliminate A, B, and D.

(E) The first is a conclusion, the evidence for which the editorial evaluates; the second is part of the evidence cited in favor of that conclusion.

The first is not the conclusion of the govt. expert. It is only used to support the expert’s conclusion. 
 Eliminate E.

(C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was used to support the proposal.

Correct.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

agrasan · Answer

Hi GMATNinja , The editorial does say that " there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required." On the basis of this, can we say that first-half of both options A and B are true? My understanding is "dispute" means a disagreement (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/dispute) and we clearly see a disagreement in the thinking between the expert and editorial on watch commanders' standards for arrests. Please let me know where I went wrong.

GMATNinja · Answer

The author does not dispute the observation itself. The author would AGREE that, currently, almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce.

The author disagrees with the expert's recommendation (the proposal based on the observation) but NOT with the observation itself, so the first half of (A) and (B) don't work.

ravi1522 · Answer

Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest. --- Fact

Such approval is denied if the commander judges that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient. --- fact

1. A government efficiency expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce. --- situation

The expert has therefore recommended that, 2. because the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted,---- opinion

the watch commander’s approval no longer be required. --- proposal

This recommendation should be rejected as dangerous, --- opinion/recommendation/conclusion

however, since there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required. --- contradiction/ explanation / main conclusion

best answer - (C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was used to support the proposal.

In the editorial, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a claim, the accuracy of which is disputed by the editorial; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the editorial. 
 BF1 is claim we can say that but accuracy of BF1 is nowhere disputed.BF2 is not conclusion it is fact or claim which is supporting the recommendation of expert not the main conclusion as main conclusion is going against the expert recommendation .

(B) The first is an observation that the editorial disputes; the second is a conclusion that was drawn from that observation.
 BF1 is observation we can say but it was never disputed by editor .BF2 is not conclusion it is kind of fact/claim which supports the expert recommendation.

(C) The first is a finding that was used in support of a proposal that the editorial opposes; the second is a judgment that was based on that finding and in turn was used to support the proposal. BF1 is finding that was used in support of proposal that is correct ,which was opposed by editor as dangerous .BF2 is kind of judgement on that finding as evidence are adequate ,so getting approval is waste of time ,which in turn used for proposal. (Correct )

(D) The first is a finding introduced to support the main conclusion of the editorial; the second is that main conclusion.
 BF1 is finding is correct but it not to support the editor main conclusion it to support the expert proposal .BF2 is not the main conclusion it kind of support for expert proposal .

(E) The first is a conclusion, the evidence for which the editorial evaluates; the second is part of the evidence cited in favor of that conclusion.
 BF1 is not conclusion it claim or fact ,editorial did not evaluated that fact or claim .BF2 is part of evidence we can say but in favour of expert proposal and that conclusion is referring to BF1 as conclusion which is not conclusion .

Am i eliminating for right reasoning ?

Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional

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

Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional

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