In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production the Has

Question

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production,  the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants.  Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal. It is true that  adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity.  It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity.

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

(A) The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives evidence in support of that course of action.

(B) The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives a reason for not adopting a possible alternative course of action.

(C) The first introduces a plan that the argument evaluates; the second provides evidence that is used to support that plan against possible alternatives.

(D) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second is a claim that has been used in support of the plan but that the argument maintains is inaccurate.

(E) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second provides evidence that is used to support the argument's evaluation of that plan.

ID: 500254
CR59820.02

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

For boldface questions, first break down the structure of the argument as a whole, and then focus in on the role of the boldface portions:

The author introduces a proposal:  "the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants." (BF1).  
 The author also specifies the  goal  of the proposal: "to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production."

On to the meat of the argument:

The author  concludes  that "Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal."

How does the author reach this conclusion?

First, he/she  admits  that there is some evidence that the proposal would work:  "It is true that adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity." (BF2)  
 But then, he/she offers evidence that it probably won't work: "It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity."

In all, the author's purpose in writing this passage is to evaluate whether a certain proposal will work. The author then provides evidence to show how he/she reached the conclusion that the proposal probably won't work.

Which answer choice captures the role of the two boldfaced portions?
 
The proposed course of action is "to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants" -- but the author definitely doesn't  support  that proposal. In fact, he/she thinks that the plan probably  won't  achieve its goal.

Eliminate (A).

Same issue as (A) -- the author doesn't support the plan.

(B) is out.

The first part looks good! The author's main concern is to evaluate the plan to build power plants.

We run into trouble with the second piece, though. First, the author doesn't support the proposal to build power plants. In addition, the author doesn't discuss possible  alternative  plans -- he/she only weighs in on the plan mentioned in the first sentence of the passage.

Get rid of (C).

Again, the first bit looks fine!

But does the author think that the information in the second boldface is  inaccurate ? Nope, he/she actually says  "it is  true   that adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity." The author then goes on to say why the plan won't work  even though  the statement is true.

Because the argument doesn't maintain that BF2 is inaccurate, you can eliminate (D).

Which leaves us with (E):
 
Same explanation of BF1, so everything is good there.

For BF2: The purpose of the last two sentences of the passage is to show  why  the author believes that the plan probably won't achieve its goal -- this belief represents the author's EVALUATION of that plan. BF2 is a piece of evidence that the author considers when justifying that evaluation. Sure, it's a bit confusing that the specific information in BF2 seems to go against the author's conclusion -- but the overall purpose of including BF2 is to explain the author's reasoning behind his/her evaluation.

In addition, the other answer choices are flat-out wrong and (E) is clearly the best option. So (E) is the correct answer.

gmatn0ob · Answer

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production,  the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants.  Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal. It is true that  adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity.  It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity.

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

BF1: the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants
Quite straightforward - Proposal of the government

BF2: adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity.
Brings out evidence to help support BF1 - that the plan will succeed

Conclusion: Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal
The last sentence gives the reason why the plan won't be enough to achieve the goal - reason that the demand will still persist because the existing plants will not function in full capacity

A) The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives evidence in support of that course of action
  Half of BF1 is correct - it does introduce a course of action, but that course of action is not supported by the argument (in fact, the argument questions the long-term validity of the proposal). BF2 is ok

B) The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives a reason for not adopting a possible alternative course of action
 BF1 has the same problem as option A. BF2 gives evidence that supports the plan. There is no talk of alternative course of action

C) The first introduces a plan that the argument evaluates; the second provides evidence that is used to support that plan against possible alternatives.
 Again, there is no mention of alternatives, BF2 doesn't hold

D) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second is a claim that has been used in support of the plan but that the argument  maintains is inaccurate. 
 Tricky one! BF1 works. BF2 - argument doesn't say that the evidence is inaccurate. It doesn't say anything like -even when the outputs will be added it will not be enough. The argument just questions long term utility of the proposal

E) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second provides evidence that is used to support the argument's evaluation of that plan.
 Correct!   BF1 ok. BF2 ok - the evidence is being used to support the final evaluation - Hydro plant + Current plants good for now, but current plants will not be good for the next 15 years, hence will not be able to meet demand

KarishmaB · Answer

Plan: the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants Goal: to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production Author conceding a point in favour of the plan: It is true that adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity . Author's objection to the plan achieving its goal: It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity. Author's Conclusion: Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal. BF One is the plan and the other is a point conceded in favour of the plan. But note what the argument supports i.e. what does the author think? She thinks that the plan is not massive enough to achieve its goal. She gives her objection to support why she feels so (that in 15 years, current power plants will be too old) A) The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support ; the second gives evidence in support of that course of action. The part in red above is not correct. The argument does not provide support to the plan. The argument tells us that the plan may not achieve its goal. E) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second provides evidence that is used to support the argument's evaluation of that plan. Tricky wording here but it is the best option. The argument is evaluating the plan. The second BF support the plan. Answer (E) Video on Boldface Questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production,  the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants . Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal. It is true that  adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity . It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity.

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

A. The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives evidence in support of that course of action.  The first is introducing a course of action, but the argument does not support it; the argument is saying that the project may not be massive enough to achieve the goal. Eliminate

B. The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives a reason for not adopting a possible alternative course of action.  Same as A. Eliminate.

C. The first introduces a plan that the argument evaluates; the second provides evidence that is used to support that plan against possible alternatives.  Yes, the first is introducing a plan that the argument is evaluating, but not alternatives have been referred to. So the second bold face is not correct. Eliminate.

D. The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second is a claim that has been used in support of the plan but that the argument maintains is inaccurate.  Yes, the first is introducing a plan for achieving a certain goal, but the argument does not say that what is mentioned in the second is inaccurate. Eliminate.

E. The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second provides evidence that is used to support the argument's evaluation of that plan.   Yes, the first is introducing a plan for achieving a certain goal. Yes, the second is giving evidence to support the evaluation of the plan.

- Nitha Jay

emcheeks · Answer

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production,  the Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants.  Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal. It is true that  adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity.  It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity.

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

A) The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives evidence in support of that course of action.

Same as B, choice A has its first BF part saying the argument supports the plan. However, the conclusion: "too old to function at full capacity" means that the argument is against the conclusion. Therefore, BF1 of both A and B is wrong. BF2 in A is correct. 
C) The first introduces a plan that the argument evaluates; the second provides evidence that is used to support that plan against possible alternatives.

BF2 doesn't mention any possible alternatives.

D) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second is a claim that has been used in support of the plan but that the argument maintains is inaccurate.

By saying something is "inaccurate", that means that the author gotta contradict this statement later. However, in the argument, the economists did not contract the statement (BF2), instead they acknowledged the statement (BF2), and addresses another disadvantage of the plan. Therefore, you cannot say that argument says BF2 is "inaccurate".

E) The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second provides evidence that is used to support the argument's evaluation of that plan.

Notice that "argument's evaluation" is a  neutral  word --> it doesn't mean strengthening nor weakening. In this case, BF2 doesn't support the conclusion. Therefore, a neutral word could be used.

Taptap · Answer

Again, the first bit looks fine!

But does the author think that the information in the second boldface is  inaccurate ? Nope , he/she actually says  "it is  true   that adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity." The author then goes on to say why the plan won't work  even though  the statement is true.

Because the argument doesn't maintain that BF2 is inaccurate, you can eliminate (D) .

GMATNinja , I could not understand your reasoning of eliminating D option.
As per the Highlighted portion you felt that the information is not inaccurate. However, saying that adding projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output would be successful and lead to self sufficiency in itself is an INACCURATE statement, since it did'nt take into account the fact that the benefit of these plants would accrue years later. I do not understand why you said BF2 is NOT inaccurate. Pls explain. Thanks in advance.

GMATNinja · Answer

Take a closer look at exactly what is detailed in the second boldface:

The argument explicitly states that the information detailed in this boldface is true (“It is true…”). The reason that the author does this is because the boldface considers what happens when we add the  projected  output to the current ( now ) output. The final statement goes on to detail that we can’t do this because it will take fifteen years to achieve the projected output. But the information given in the second boldface, while not practical, is still true.

For that reason, we can eliminate (D).

I hope that helps!

Krishnahelps · Answer

Hi, I do not understand where is the evaluation happening here as per option E? Can you please help?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

"The argument's evaluation" is basically a fancy or confusing way of saying "the argument's conclusion."

The argument's conclusion is the following: Although this is a massive project, it is probably not massive enough to achieve the goal.

That conclusion is supported by the second boldfaced portion of the passage and the last sentence of the passage.

The second boldfaced portion provides some information about the plan, "adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity."

Then the last sentence adds more information, "It will, however, take at least fifteen years to complete the project and by then the majority of Hasaria's current power plants will be too old to function at full capacity."

Combined, the two sentences support the conclusion.

kungfury42 · Answer

GMATNinja   MartyTargetTestPrep   KarishmaB

Can you please help me understand the difference between a claim and an evidence? In my understanding, a claim is something that a person simply believes in, and an evidence is something which is a concrete material proof.

For ex:

50 cans of beer would be enough for 6 people over a lunch. Research shows that no person can drink more than 5 cans of beer without passing out.

1. 50 cans of beer  would be  enough for 6 people over a lunch.   This is the claim. Simply author's speculation.

2. Research shows that no person can drink more than 5 cans of beer without passing out.   This is the evidence that can now prove that the claim is true.

In light of this, how is the BF2 an evidence but not a claim?

This sounds like author's speculation. Hence I got fixated at the usage of the word claim in option D.

Posted from my mobile device

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Here's the second boldface portion in the sentence in which it appears.

It is true that  adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity.

Notice that the second boldface portion states something that can be proved mathematically: projected output + output that Hasaria can achieve now ≥ the forecast demand.

So, what the second boldface portion says can be considered a fact.

Furthermore, the author introduces the second boldface portion with "It is true that," and thus seems to indicate that it's a fact.

So, the second boldface portion appears to be more a fact than a claim.

Finally, even if we weren't sure whether it's a fact or a claim, notice that (D) says, "a claim that has been used in support of the plan but that the argument maintains is inaccurate." Of course, as we just saw, the author does not maintain that what the second boldface portion says is inaccurate. Rather, the author introduces it by saying, "It is true that."

So, regardless of whether we are 100 percent sure whether the second boldface portion should be termed a claim or a fact, we can eliminate choice (D) because of the "maintains is inaccurate" part.

RenB · Answer

Hi,
I am unable to break down - 'but that the argument maintains is inaccurate'. What is 'that' referring to here? Can you please help me understand this ?

GMATNinja · Answer

It sounds like you're referring to choice (D): "The first introduces a proposed plan for achieving a certain goal; the second is a claim (1)  that  has been used in support of the plan but (2)  that  the argument maintains is inaccurate."

Both "that" clauses can be tied back to "claim". So (D) says that the second BF part is a claim that the argument maintains is inaccurate. In other words, according to (D), the argument maintains that the second BF is an inaccurate claim.

I hope that helps!

venom007 · Answer

Hey  GMATNinja , my reasoning for option D was that in order to achieve self sufficiency the govt. proposes to construct eleven power plants. This proposal is in addition to the output of the current power plants working at full capacity. But this plan is  inaccurate  as the govt. doesn't account for the potential decrease in functionality of the current power plants after 15 years.

GMATNinja · Answer

On boldface questions you have to be really, really careful to evaluate the role of the bolded text, not other parts of the argument.

Your reasoning is that "this   plan   is inaccurate "  -- and perhaps we would agree on that! But (D) isn't talking about the plan in general. It's talked specifically about the second boldface:  "adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity."

The author doesn't believe that  this exact statement  is inaccurate. If both the new plants and the old were functional, that "would be" enough to meet the demand, just as this boldface states!

Because the author doesn't say that the  exact  bit that is in boldface is inaccurate, we can eliminate (D).

I hope that helps!

vic231 · Answer

GMATNinja   MartyTargetTestPrep   KarishmaB

Can you please help me with my understanding of why option A is wrong?

A. The first introduces a proposed course of action for which the argument provides support; the second gives evidence in support of that course of action

The boldfaced portion 1 do indeed proposes a course of action which is supported by the statement " In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production " in the argument.
The boldface portion 2 do indeed provides support of that course.  Why  " Hasarian government proposes to construct eleven huge hydroelectric power plants "?  Because  " adding the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve now would be enough to meet the forecast demand for electricity "

What's wrong with the above reasoning?

GMATNinja · Answer

It's a stretch to say that the first part ("In order to achieve..") supports the course of action -- it's really just some necessary context.

More importantly, you have to consider the entire argument when thinking about the role of each part and ask yourself: Why did the author include this?

Did the author include the second BF to SUPPORT the course of action? Nope. The author presents the second BF to help explain why he/she DOESN'T think the plan will work. So the wording in the second half of choice (E) is more accurate.

Similarly, the first half of (A) isn't quite as good as the first half of (E) because the argument never actually says anything in support of the plan. Yes, taken out of context, the 2nd BF might seem to support the plan, but the author goes on to show why that fact is actually NOT, in itself, sufficient support for the plan.

(A) is tempting, but (E) is a better fit given the context.

vic231 · Answer

GMATNinja 
Why " In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production"  is not the support for the course of action mentioned in BF1? Can you please help me with this.
My understanding was, since this particular sentence helps us to provide details on why the government is taking this big step of setting up 11 plants, so it provides some support to the course of action.

GMATNinja · Answer

Explaining WHY the government wants to do something isn't the same as supporting the government's plan.

Here, have an example:

Imagine that your friend wants to buy a Lamborghini  in order to impress his neighbors .
 
 You might concede that your friend's plan WOULD hypothetically work IF his neighbors were into cars. But in reality, his neighbors are all staunch public transportation advocates who look down on people who own private automobiles.
 
 The part in bold explains WHY your friend wants to buy the car, but it doesn't  support  your friend's plan -- a plan that you likely think will fail given the circumstances.

Similarly, it's hard to say that the author supports the plan when the conclusion of the argument is that the plan will probably fail (the government's plan "is probably NOT massive enough to achieve the goal  "). Hypothetically, the plan WOULD work if could be completed immediately, but in reality, it cannot be completed immediately, so it will not work.

In other words, the plan would only work in an unrealistic fantasy world. The second boldface describes a scenario that   cannot   exist because we   cannot   add the projected output of the new hydroelectric plants to the output that Hasaria can achieve   now  .

That hypothetical scenario might appear to be support for the plan until we realize that it is in fact impossible.

And that's why (A) is tempting if we only look at the BF in a bubble without considering the context. The hypothetical scenario isn't presented in support of the plan. Instead, it's presented to show why the plan will likely fail.

(E) does a much better job of describing the true role of the BF within the broader context of the argument.

I hope that helps!

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production the Has

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

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in electricity production the Has

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