In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each

In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

to solve this question, lets first see the conclusion. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.
The stem starts with a fact/ findings - In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories.
The second line wants to evaluate the findings The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization.

To answer that we have A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value.

Let's get to POE.


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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
This is the correct choice as it matches our thinking.

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
This is incorrect. It is very close but if you see only the highlighted part it doesn't call the conclusion into question.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
This is incorrect as the first does not identify the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second does not provide support for that conclusion.

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
This is incorrect as the first does not provide support for the conclusion of the argument; the second does not call that conclusion into question.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
This is incorrect as the second does not call the finding into question.


IMO A.

Let us check the Boldfaces:

The conclusion of the argument is:
The pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

BF1:
Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories
This is the decision that the argument is trying to evaluate.

BF2:
the new approach has benefited the organization
This forms the matter based on which the conclusion has been stated. Note: “whether” is not a part of the boldface and hence, this boldface is not questioning anything.

A. The first is finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
Matches what we stated above. Hold.

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
The second is not questioning anything.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
The first is not the content of the conclusion of the argument.

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The second is not questioning anything.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
The second is not questioning anything.

Answer A

A IMO

The last sentence of the argument is the main conclusion " ". The two bold face statements set the context of the argument from which the conclusion is drawn. The first is an consideration of whose implication argument seeks to evaluate, second is a concern of stakeholders that is answered by author in his conclusion. Second doesn't oppose the conclusion, but just sets the context for author to draw the conclusion.

In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
This is correct. Implications of first are evaluated in the argument, and second sets the context or content of the conclusion.

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
First is correct, but second doesn't calls conclusion into question at all.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
First might be right because first does set the content or context for the argument to be drawn, but second doesn't provide any support for conclusion.

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
Both are wrong. First doesn't provide any support for the conclusion, second does not oppose the argument.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
First is correct, but second doesn't question the finding.

Premises:

-Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories
-The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization
-A detailed analysis suggests that benefits > cons

Conclusion:

Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

Prethink:

The first boldface part is actually is a fact whose effects are going to be evaluated by the argument and the second boldface part is a part of the conclusion (benefits part), so we must find and answer that matches this previous analysis.

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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. - Seems good
B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.- first part ok, second one is not correct since the second part is in line with the conclusion
C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.- first part is not the content of the conclusion, so clearly incorrect
D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.- first part does not provide any support for the conclusion, so clearly incorrect
E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.- first part ok, second part does not calls any finding into question

So (A) is our answer.
_________________

In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

First boldface: Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories.
Second boldface: the new approach has benefited the organization.
Conclusion: the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.
Second boldface is similar to the conclusion

First boldface is is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate, and the second boldface is similar to the conclusion of the argument.


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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.

The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. Correct

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. This could have been correct if complete sentence of second boldface could have been used in bold. But second boldface is similar to the conclusion. Incorrect

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
The first does not identify with the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second is similar to the conclusion. Incorrect

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The first does not provide support for the conclusion of the argument; the second does not call that conclusion into question. Incorrect

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second does not call the finding into question but is similar to the conclusion. Incorrect

IMO A

In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.


Ok, the first is a fact, and the second is something that calls to evaluate this fact.
The conclusion is the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.



A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
CORRECT. The first is a premise whose pros and cons the second calls to evaluate

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
Well, second is not call the conclusion into question, it doesn't weaken it in any way.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
The first is just a premise and the second identifies the content of conclusion, not the first

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
Again, the second does not call the conclusion into question, it just identifies the content of the conclusion.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
This one is tempting, but I can't say that the second is calls into question. It doesn't weaken the first. Thus, incorrect.


The answer is A

Summary : WI decided to subdivide investment into 36 and encouraged its analysts to analyse. <What is to be evaluated>
The stakeholders concerned whether approach has benefited. <whether, Content of conclusion>
Increase in labor, but other key benefits. <Fact>
Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons. <Conclusion>

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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. -Correct, inline with the structure above
B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. - Second does not call the conclusion into question
C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. - First provides what is to be evaluated + Second provides no support to conclusion
D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. First provides what is to be evaluated + Second is not against the conclusion

IMO A
E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. - Second does not call the fact given in the argument into question

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. - The first boldface portion is identified correctly. The second boldface portion challenges the results of the finding and after that the conclusion of the text is revealed. Correct
B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. - The second boldface portion does not put the conclusion of the argument into question. Instead, it helps to find out what conclusion is. Incorrect
C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. - The second boldface portion does not provide support for the conclusion of the argument. The first boldface portion also does not identify the content of the conclusion. Incorrect
D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. - The first boldface portion gives an argument the topic to evaluate, it does not provide support for the conclusion. Incorrect
E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. - The first boldface portion is identified correctly. However, the second boldface portion does not call the finding into question, instead, it assesses its impact which is given in the conclusion of the argument. Incorrect

Answer: A

IMO A

Conclusion: the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons
BF1: Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories
BF2: the new approach has benefited the organization

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. - Correct, the first is a finding on “Wisdom Investments” adopting a strategy/approach last year. The second provides information which identifies the content of the conclusion

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. - The second does NOT call the conclusion of the argument into question, it helps to provide information which identifies the content of the conclusion.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. - the first does NOT identify the content of the conclusion, it presents a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate. It simply provides information about “Wisdom Investments” adopting a strategy/approach last year

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. - the first does NOT provide support for the conclusion of the argument, it presents a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate. It simply provides information about “Wisdom Investments” adopting a strategy/approach last year. The second does NOT call the conclusion into question, it helps to provide information which identifies the content of the conclusion

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. - the second does NOT call the finding into question, it helps to provide information which identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument

Finding: Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories.

Conclusion : The pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons. - This just means to say that the new approach has benefited the organization

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
True about the first boldface and the second boldface in itself (notice the "whether" is not in boldface) is a rewording of the conclusion - Correct

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
The conclusion is rather a rephrasing of the second boldface. So the second does not call the conclusion into question - Eliminate

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
First is a background information that does not constitute any part of the conclusion - Eliminate

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The first is a background information. We cannot draw a conclusion from this that the strategy worked. - Eliminate

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
True about the first but the second does not question the finding. The boldface portion of the second in itself does not call the finding into question (this could have been the case if the entire sentence was in boldface) - Eliminate

Answer is (A)
_________________

Identifying author’s conclusion first is the most crucial step in figuring out the roles that boldfaces play in his argument.

So, what is the main message that the author tries to deliver us? Is that the emphasis on the success of the new approach taken by Wisdom Investments? - Yes, indeed we can see that he ends his argument talking about the new approach’s pros based on a detailed analysis.

Conclusion: Hence (signals the conclusion), the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons = The new approach has benefited the company.

Reasons: The new approach has benefited the company because (signals the premise) the firm has generated higher returns, received greater investments, built stronger brand value, and the pros outweighed the cons.

We can see that the conclusion directly addresses the concern raised by the stakeholders of the company. In other words, stakeholders’ concern identifies about what the conclusion will talk.

Stakeholders: Has the new approach benefited the organization? (the second boldface)

Conclusion: Yes (not outspoken, but logically inferred), the new approach has benefited the organization because...

A. Hence, we can see that the whole argument evaluates the implications of Wisdom Investments’ new approach introduced by the first boldface. The second boldface is the concern to which the conclusion will be dedicated. That’s exactly the same thing A is talking about.

The second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument = The conclusion will talk about the second boldface. Thus A is correct.

B. The second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. That’s incorrect because the second is not claiming that the new approach has failed without any profit. The second does NOT address the conclusion, but the conclusion DOES address the second.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. That’s incorrect because the conclusion does NOT talk about the details of implementing the new approach (first boldface). That’s the second boldface what identifies the conclusion’s content.

The second provides support for that conclusion. That’s incorrect because the support provided by the detailed analysis is not illustrated in the second boldface.

D. The second calls that conclusion into question. That’s incorrect because the second is not claiming that the new approach has failed without any profit. The second does NOT address the conclusion, but the conclusion DOES address the second.

E. The second calls the finding into question. That’s incorrect because the stakeholders of the company have been JUST concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization, but they DIDN’T cast any doubt on the obtained results or the success of the approach. Concern means - be worried about or give questions about something. Giving questions doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t believe in the soundness of the new approach. Being concerned about something and calling something into question are different things.

Hence A
_________________

Statement (1): Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories.
Statement (2): the new approach has benefited the organization. ---> content of the conclusion
Main conclusion of the argument: the new approach has benefited the organization, because the pros of the new approach clearly outweigh its cons

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
CORRECT ANSWER. The first is indeed a finding -by the organization stakeholders- the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate, while the second accurately describes the content of the conclusion of the argument.

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
The first is indeed a finding -by the organization stakeholders- the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second does not call the the conclusion of the argument into question, but identifies the content of the conclusion.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
The first describes not the content of the conclusion of the argument, but what the argument seeks to evaluate (i.e. new approach); the second does not provide any support for the conclusion of the argument, but identifies the content of the conclusion.

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The first does not provide any support for the conclusion of the argument, but is what the argument seeks to evaluate (i.e. new approach); the second does not call the the conclusion of the argument into question, but identifies the content of the conclusion.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
The first is indeed a finding -by the organization stakeholders- the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second does not call the finding into question, but identifies the content of the conclusion.
Note that IF the boldfaced second WERE the entire sentence"the stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization," then the second WOULD BE TRUE to call the finding into question.

Answer is (A)

The answer is A.

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. - yes, the finding is that the fund had a break down of its investments and the conclusion would be whether the finding approach was successful or not, which is contained in the content of the second. hence, correct.

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
- the first is a finding which the argument wants to evaluate as successful or not, however the second does not call any conclusion into question but rather identifies the content within the conclusion, so wrong

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
- the first does not identify the content of the conclusion, but rather is the finding to be evaluated by the argument; and second does not support any conclusion but is the content that would be contained within the conclusion, so wrong

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
- the first does not support any conclusion, but rather is the finding to be evaluated by the argument; and second does not call into account the conclusion but is the content that would be contained within the conclusion, so wrong

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.
- the first is indeed the finding which whether successful or not the argument seeks to evaluate, however the second does not call the finding into question (the finding is definitely true and factual) but rather calls the implication or impact of the finding into question and is rather the content of the conclusion, so wrong

In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

Analysis :

Lets jumble the sentence for enchanced understanding

(BF1)In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories.

(premise ) The stakeholders of the company have been concerned about this. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value.

(intermediate conclusion)Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

( BF2 :conclusion) hence , the new approach has benefited the organization.

Perse BF2 is the conclusion , but in question format, the reasons being answered in the premises following it.

BF1 is the premise , whose implication is evaluated in the following sentences
BF2 , has the contents of the conclusion. .

POE

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
1) First is the finding (a premise), that 36 categories has been created, its implication is evaluated in the sentences after.
2) The second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.
( as the second has the contents of conclusion in itself we can call this as identifying, . As the conclusion is in the question format, identifying the conclusion is better than saying it is the conclusion perse)
So this option is correct .

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
The second is not questioning the conclusion. It is having the conclusion in itself in the question format. It wont amount to questioning the conclusion. . So this is wrong.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
The first is not identifying the content of the conclusion as it is the premise which is evaluated further . The second is also not providing support for the conclusion, as it is the conclusion evaluated . so this is wrong

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The first is not providing support, its just a finding evaluated afterwards. Moreover the second is not questioning the conclusion. It is having the conclusion in itself in the question format. It wont amount to questioning the conclusion. . So this is wrong.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question
, the second is not questioning the finding.. It is evaluating the finding by asking the conclusion in the question format. So this also wrong

As only A remains,

Our ans is A .

IMO-A

Understanding the Passage:

o In Jan last Year, Wisdom Inv. decided to split further its categories of investments.
o This was done to encourage analytics identify & exploit trends in each categories.
o The stakeholders are doubtful if this approach really benefited the organisation.
o Analysis suggest that the organisation has benefited. Though Man-hour spent increased, returns on investment was significantly higher (that lead to greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value)
o Conclusion: Approach Pros (advantages/benefits) > Cons (disadvantages/loss)

BF 1 Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories.
BF 2 the new approach has benefited the organization

BF Analysis: So as per our understanding of passage, The first BF is a finding (Split & Identify/exploit trends for benefit), and the argument is trying to ascertain the implication of a finding (whether Inv. split into further categories was beneficial/not), and the second BF (the new approach has benefited the organization) is a subset for the conclusion that states that the organisation has benefited more than it lost.

Answer choice analysis:
As per analysis, A, B, E are the contenders as the first BF is a finding.

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.-----Correct-----The first BF (Split- identify & exploit trend) is a finding the implication (Beneficial/Not- for org.) of which argument seek to evaluate. he Second BF (Org. benefited) is a part/content of the conclusion that states Pros (Advt./Benefits) > Cons (Disadvt./loss) for the organisation

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.-----Incorrect-----First Bf is finding (Ok) implication (Benefit/loss) of which argument seek to evaluate, however second BF (the new approach has benefited the organization) not questions the conclusion. it is rather a content of the conclusion which is Pros (Advt./Benefits) > Cons (Disadvt./loss) for the organisation.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion-----Incorrect-----The fist BF is a finding the implication (Benefited/Not) of which provide content to make conclusion. Second BF states the company has benefited but no comparison whether the benefits were more than losses, so not support the conclusion pros > cons.

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.-----Incorrect-----The implication(Benefited/Not) of first BF provides support for the conclusion and not the finding itself. 'Whether' is not a part of BF2 so it doesn't question the conclusion. Also second BF is just one part (benefit) of the conclusion.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question.-----Incorrect-----The first BF , a finding implication which argument seeks to establish, is ok here. the second BF not questions anything- 'whether' not a part of this BF (Let assume even if it questions, then that will be the implication of the finding and not the finding itself)

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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. - The first portion is a finding, the second portion identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. Correct
B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. - the second portion doesn't call the conclusion of the argument into question.
C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. - the first portion is not the conclusion of the argument
D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. - the first portion is not about support of the argument
E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. - The first portion is a finding which is evaluated, but the second portion doesn't call the finding into question.

The answer is A

Conclusion: The new approach taken by the organization has been beneficial.

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. --> Correct.

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. --> Incorrect. The first part is correct here but the second part is wrong. The second part is the acctual conclusion established by the argument.

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. --> Incorrect. The first is a finding which is evaluated. The second is the actual conclusion established by the argument.

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. --> Incorrect. The first is a finding which is evaluated. The second is the actual conclusion established by the argument.

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. --> Incorrect. First part is correct here. The second is incorrect as it is the conclusion established by the argument.

Answer: A

In January last year, Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. The stakeholders of the company have been concerned whether the new approach has benefited the organization. A detailed analysis suggests that although the man-hours spent in research skyrocketed, the firm has been able to generate significantly higher returns for its investors, leading to far greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value. Hence, the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons.

As per the argument, Wisdom Investments took some decision in January last year. (This one is first bold).
And then goes on to talk about the concerns of the stakeholders. (This is second bold).
Further adds enough pointers on how the decision was right and has helped investors and brand value. And therefore, pros of the decision outweigh its cons.

Hence as per the argument it can be concluded that the new approach has benefited the organization though its not explicitly mentioned. But the same can be found in second bold face.
Its clear that argument is trying to evaluate the first bold statement.

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

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. --> Yes, argument is evaluating the implications of a finding in the first. And second contains the content of the conclusion. Correct.
B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. --> Yes, argument is evaluating the implications of a finding in the first. But second is not questioning the conclusion rather contains the information. Incorrect.
C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. --> First does not contain the content of the conclusion. Second does not provides support rather contains the content of the conclusion. Incorrect.
D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. --> First one is not supporting the conclusion. Rather argument is evaluating the first one. Second contains the content and not calling into question the conclusion. Incorrect.
E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. --> second does not question the findings. Incorrect.

Answer Choice: A

First thing to do in BF questions is to identify author's conclusion. Then, we need to identify what role do BF sentences play towards that conclusion.
But first let's breakdown the argument:
Wisdom company divided each of its investment category into 3, so out of 12 categories, Wisdom got 36 (first BF). Shareholders wondered if such decision is for the good of the company (second BF). Although the company spent many hours on research, it was able to increase returns for investors. Therefore, the benefits of the approach outweighs the costs (conclusion).
Conclusion: "the pros of the approach clearly outweigh its cons."
1st BF: Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories - the argument evaluates if this BF sentence led to some benefits for the company.
2nd BF: the new approach has benefited the organization - supports the conclusion.
Now, let's jump on to the choices.

A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument. - yes, the first is true. The argument tries to evaluate if division brought positive results for the company. The second is true also because it identifies the content of the argument. That is the conclusion will support the second BF. So far so good. Keep A

B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question. - almost perfect, but the second BF is wrong because the second one does not call the conclusion into question but instead conclusion supports the second BF. Eliminate

C. The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion. - both are wrong. First BF does not identify the content of the conclusion, it is the job of the second BF. Moreover, second BF does not provide support for the conclusion, instead the conclusion supports the second BF. Eliminate

D. The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. -The second is wrong because it does not doubt the conclusion and says that company received no benefit from the division of categories of investment. Also, the conclusion supports the second BF. Eliminate

E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the finding into question. - although the first is correct, the second one is not. Second one does not oppose the conclusion. Conclusion supports the second BF, which in turn turns out to be correct [the approach benefited the company] Eliminate

We were able to eliminate all but A, which is our answer.