Many winemakers use cork stoppers; but cork stoppers can leak, crumble

So this is a pretty lengthy argument, but it is one argument that progressively advances toward the main conclusion. That eliminates answer choices A and B immediately, because there is nothing contradictory to the argument that is presented. The argument can be summarized as follows:

P) Cork stoppers have problems that result in wasted inventory
P) Bottlemaster plastic stoppers do not have these problems
P) Bottlemaster plastic stoppers are slightly more expensive than traditional cork stoppers
P) Cork prices are going to rise dramatically
Intermediate Conclusion) Winemakers who use cork but wish to keep production costs low will have to reconsider plastic stoppers
P) Public's negative association with plastic wine stoppers is declining
Ultimate Conclusion) Bottlemaster plastic stoppers will gain an increased market share

Veritas teaches a great technique of the "why test." Any conclusion must be supported with reasons in the argument, and the ultimate conclusion here is supported by the fact that the public is no longer so negative about plastic stoppers and winemakers who currently use cork stoppers but who wish to keep production costs low are going to need to reconsider using plastic stoppers. Veritas also teaches something that I refer to as the "reverse why test." This states that any ultimate conclusion of an argument cannot serve as the "why" to something else - it is in no way a premise. I like to think of it as the "end of the line." Here the intermediate conclusion (as we just saw) is also a conclusion, because it is supported by the fact that the plastic stoppers are a good substitution for the cork stoppers, and cork stoppers are going to rise drastically. It then itself, however, serves as a "why" to the main conclusion, as we just saw, meaning that it cannot itself be the main conclusion - it does not pass the "reverse why test."

That makes answer choice E the correct answer. Both C and D incorrectly cite the intermediate conclusion as the main conclusion.

I hope this helps!

E it is.
Bcz wine-makers are forced to reconsider plastics stoppers, this will lead to a possible increase in market share of plastics stoppers. So "the increase in market share" should be the main conclusion here.

I used a process of elimination too. On reading the passage I felt that the second bold faced sentence was the main conclusion. Gaining Market Share is the main conclusion. There are many factors in support of that like the imminent rise of the Price of Cork, weakening association of pastic stoppers with poor quality wine etc.

I eliminated B,C,D. The first bold faced statement is more of a conclusion than a judgement, so I pick E.

Am I thinking it out correctly?

Vote E.

Reading the argument, the main conclusion is the second BF => B and C are gone.

The relationship of the first BF to the main conclusion (second BF): The first BF is an intermediate conclusion on the road to the main conclusion => That leaves us with E as the only realistic option.

My pick E. First statement is a conclusion that wine makes will start using plastic stopper and because wine makers will use plastic stopper, bottlemasters' market share will increase

E

A. The first is a judgment that has been advanced in support of a position that the
argument opposes; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

B. The first is a judgment that has been advanced in support of a position that the
argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the
main conclusion of the argument.

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence
in support of that main conclusion.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a restatement
of that main conclusion.

E. The first is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the
argument; the second is that main conclusion.

Conclusion portion is tricky. But if you analyze timeline order, the conclusion which stands chronologically last is final conclusion. Winemakers who which to reduce production cost choose plastic wine-bottle stoppers. But the market gain is chronologically much later, so it is better candidate for the overall conclusion.

Main Conclusion: there is an excellent chance that the Bottle master plastic stopper
will gain an increased share of the market for wine-bottle stoppers.

Bolfface1: Supports main conclusion
Boldface2: Is conclusion

A. The first is a judgment that has been advanced in support of a position that the
argument opposes; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. [First is judgment that supports the conclusion – eliminate it]

B. The first is a judgment that has been advanced in support of a position that the
argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the
main conclusion of the argument. [First is judgment that supports the conclusion – eliminate it]

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence
in support of that main conclusion. [Second is not evidence – it is also a conclusion – eliminate it]

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a restatement
of that main conclusion. [Second is main conclusion of the argument – eliminate it]

E. The first is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the
argument; the second is that main conclusion. [Hold it]

Answer: E

E it is. The first is a logical conclusion that is drived at by considering the changing dynamics whereas the second is the author's conclusion. He is using the first as a logical foundation for his conclusion.

Hi,

E is the right choice.

Look at the argument in this way.

BF2 results because of BF1.

Market share of Plastic bottlestoppers will increase because the operational costs of wine makers will increase when wooden stoppers are used.

Hence the causal effect relationship has to be looked and this approach is logical looking at the context.

Regards

Letter E for me.

Without the first bold part, the last bold part would not be possible. Therefore, the second bold part is the main conclusion.

IMO E
The first is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the
argument; the second is that main conclusion.
Last line is the main conclusion of the argument .

From the reading of the argument, it becomes clear that the first boldface is a sub-conclusion drawn by the Bottle Master manufacturer, which is used to further strengthen or prove his final point about Bottle Master gaining an increased market share.

A The first is not supporting a position that the argument opposes. Rather, it is supporting a position that the argument supports.
B Same as A.
C The second is NOT supporting the Main conclusion. It is itself the Main Conclusion.
D The first is NOT the main conclusion. It is only a reason to believe in the main conclusion that comes later.
E CORRECT. Both parts match with our understanding of the argument.

abhimahna

I am confused between options C and E. Could you please tell me if my thought process is right?

Bottlemaster plastic stopper will gain an increased share of market because wine makers will reconsider plastic stoppers.

That way, BF2 is the main conclusion.

Hey PPhoenix77 ,

Yes, 2nd BF is the main conclusion and not the evidence. Hence, C is out.

Does that make sense?
_________________

I took some time in reading the argument stem, but once the argument was clear to me working out with the options was easy - E as it was concluded to.

How do we identify which is the main conclusion and which is the intermediate conclusion?

Either bold face looks like the main conclusion.

Yeah, good question. The big key is in that non-bold portion between the two bolds:

And since the wine-buying public’s association of plastic stoppers with poor-quality wine is weakening,

Notice that word "since" - this portion between the bolds indicates that the second bolded portion depends on the first. This means that the first conclusion is a step toward arriving at the second....the first conclusion is used as a premise to reach the second, main conclusion.

One thing we like to talk about in the Veritas CR classes is "The Why Test" - in CR, conclusions have to be based on premises, so you can find conclusions by making sure that something else in the argument tries to explain "why" a certain statement is true. If there's no reason why, it's given as a premise. If there is a reason why, it's a conclusion (either "main" or "intermediate"). And if one conclusion explains why another is true, then that conclusion is being used as a stepping stone to reach the main conclusion (the one for which the other statements exist to explain "why" it's true).

I believe . It's E .
Below is my reasoning .

Passage analysis .
Many winemakers use cork stoppers; but cork stoppers can leak, crumble, or become moldy, so that those winemakers must often discard a significant proportion of their inventory of bottled wine. Bottlemaster plastic stoppers, which cannot leak, crumble, or mold, have long been available to winemakers, at a price slightly higher than that of traditional cork stoppers.

--Both the above statement are observation or general background information.


Cork prices, however, are expected to rise dramatically in the near future.
---A prediction

Clearly, therefore, winemakers who still use cork but wish to keep production costs from rising will be forced to reconsider plastic stoppers.
---Another prediction or claim based on the reasoning stated in the previous statement .

And since the wine-buying public’s association of plastic stoppers with poor-quality wine is weakening, there is an excellent chance that the Bottlemaster plastic stopper will gain an increased share of the market for wine-bottle stoppers.

---One more prediction or claim based on the reasoning stated in the associated statement .


So basically we found that there are 2 claims in 2 bold face .

claim 1 : winemakers who still use cork but wish to keep production costs from rising will be forced to reconsider plastic stoppers.

claim 2 : there is an excellent chance that the Bottlemaster plastic stopper will gain an increased share of the market for wine-bottle stoppers.

So we need to quickly test whether because of claim 1, claim 2 is correct.


Because
winemakers who still use cork but wish to keep production costs from rising will be forced to reconsider plastic stoppers.
there is an excellent chance that the Bottlemaster plastic stopper will gain an increased share of the market for wine-bottle stoppers.

The above statement is making sense .

So claim 2 will be the main conclusion and claim 1 will be the intermediate conclusion .
and claim 1 supports claim 2 and both are in the same direction .

With this understanding . Lets go for POE.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


(A) The first is a judgment that has been advanced in support of a position that the argument opposes; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

Bold face 1 is incorrect since first one is not supporting what argument opposes
(B) The first is a judgment that has been advanced in support of a position that the argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument.

Bold face 1 is incorrect since first one is not supporting what argument opposes

(C) The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that main conclusion.

Bold face 1 is incorrect --since 1st BF is not the main conclusion . Also BF2 is incorrect since the second is the main conclusion

(D) The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a restatement of that main conclusion.

Bold face 1 is incorrect --since 1st BF is not the main conclusion . Also BF2 is incorrect since the second is the main conclusion

(E) The first is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument; the second is that main conclusion.

-- Yes correct . 1st one is used to support to main conclusion and 2nd one is the main conclusion .

Hence E is my answer .

The first boldface portion is: "Many winemakers use cork stoppers; but cork stoppers can leak, crumble, or become moldy, so that those winemakers must often discard a significant proportion of their inventory of bottled wine."

The second boldface portion is: "And since the wine-buying public’s association of plastic stoppers with poor-quality wine is weakening, there is an excellent chance that the Bottlemaster plastic stopper will gain an increased share of the market for wine-bottle stoppers."

The first portion is presenting information about the problems with cork stoppers and their impact on winemakers. The second portion is the main conclusion of the argument, which states that there is an excellent chance that the Bottlemaster plastic stopper will gain an increased share of the market.

Given this clarification, the correct roles are as follows:

(E) The first is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument; the second is that main conclusion.