It is currently 24 Mar 2018, 16:38

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# OG - Since it has become known that several

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Status: Don't Give Up!
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT Date: 04-25-2015
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2014, 00:20
we are having Bunuel as a "GOD" in quant....Who is there in Vebal?..........Need One!
_________________

- Sachin

-If you like my explanation then please click "Kudos"

Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2011
Posts: 21
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2014, 06:44
nidhi12 wrote:
OA?
What is the official answer? A?
Why not B?

(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

B is not correct because the second boldface is not a main conclusion but a premise to support the main conclusion of the argument.
Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 578
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 11:40
Hi Experts, I picked E. I could find both conclusions etc. But my biggest problem is the alternative wording for conclusion, I just don't understand how many alternative words are there for conclusions and how to identify them:

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion PREMISE

(D) the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8003
Location: Pune, India
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 22:53
BrainLab wrote:
Hi Experts, I picked E. I could find both conclusions etc. But my biggest problem is the alternative wording for conclusion, I just don't understand how many alternative words are there for conclusions and how to identify them:

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion PREMISE

(D) the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?

The explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument so yes, it says that the second statement is a conclusion. Actually, in this question, the second statement is a premise.

(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?

The entire argument is explaining a circumstance. This would make more sense in say, a paradox situation where one statement gives the paradox and the rest of the argument explains it. So this would not be your usual conclusion.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 578
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2015, 02:40
Hi Karishma, thanks a lot for the response. I actually would like to know, whether the statements below are alternative wordings for a conclusion

argument as a whole seeks to explain
the argument seeks to establish

_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 578
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2015, 13:38
To simplify this question, let'ssay that neither of the Bold parts is a conclusion
1st BF -> supports a conclusion... the depositors are greatly relieved, BECAUSE the CEO's buy shares
2nd BF -> supports the MAIN CONCLUSION ... (C) Such reasoning is overoptimistic, BECAUSE CEO's have known to by shares to dispel rumors

So, from this point it becomes a piece of cake

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
--> So, 4 choices were 100% wrong, this one must be a correct answer
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument. --> Second BF is not a conclusion, and not the main conclusion
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion. --> Second BF is not a conclusion
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish --> First BF is not a conclusion
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish --> First BF is not a conclusion
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1332
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2015, 00:43
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

very hard to see the bold phrases, pls, make // ...// to clear the bold phrase.

thank you
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Intern
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 42
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2015, 13:29
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hi Karishma,

Have been following your explanations on this forum and they've always been so crisp yet comprehensive. Kudos to you. As regards this question, I wanted to ask why is option E wrong? The first BF describes the circumstance (CE buying shares in own bank) the argument as a whole seeks to explain and the second BF provides evidence (CE buying shares to dispel negative rumors) in support of the explanation (over optimistic reasoning) that the argument seeks to establish.

I just went through one of your previous posts and now understand why the first BF in option E doesn't fit. But would you be so kind as to point out the circumstance if any that the argument as a whole is seeking to explain here?

Thanks a ton
Intern
Joined: 19 Nov 2015
Posts: 24
GPA: 3.3
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2016, 02:10
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

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

(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in, support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5731
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2016, 07:36
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
anujagarwal11 wrote:
Can someone please explain the method used to answer such type of questions?

Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

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

(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in, support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Hi,

in the Qs, which involves BOLDFACED sentences.....
1) The first step is to find the CONCLUSION.
WHY?... Because all statements are related to the CONCLUSION in some way, it could be either supporting or against or a premise..
2) The next will be to CORRELATE it to the CONCLUSION
3) There will be no use trying to dissect it completely in what is evidence, fact, premise 1, premise 2, inferences etc and waste time.
4) After finding conclusion, look what are the choices referring these bold faces as..
5) May be able to eliminate many choices on its basis...

lets see this Q..
1) MAIN CONCLUSION :- Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however....
2) None of the bold faces are conclusion. FIRST, at the first look, is an evidence and SECOND is a premise about the evidence
3) lets see the choices now...
A) Any Choice calling any of the bold face as a conclusion needs to be eliminated immediately...
ELIMINATE B and C..
B) now the FIRST BF in no way is supporting the main conclusion, so choices seeking to prove this can again be eliminated..
ELIMINATE D and E.. it is no way describing the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain..
c) lets see WHY A should be correct?
here we are talking of A CONCLUSION and not THE CONCLUSION, so its not talking of main conclusion.
the conclusion it is trying to support is They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. the SECOND BF is questioning that SUPPORT..
FITS in properly

_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

GMAT online Tutor

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 636
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2016, 06:22
Premise 1) Executive are buying their own bank's share. ---> FIRST BOLDFACE
Premise 2) Rumors of those bank failing must be false, because no executive will DELIBERATELY buy shares of a failing institute.
Conclusion) Sometimes it is a calculated attempt by executive to KNOWINGLY buy shares of their failing institute to pretend to the people that everything is great and there is no need to worry.--> SECOND BOLDFACE

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

Conclusion says that executives will buy share (even though they have a hidden sinister motive). First boldface is saying that executives are buying. (Even thoughIt is not saying anything about the motive but none the less it is saying loudly and clearly that executive are buying shares.)-->The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion

The second boldface is the conclusion itself and it says :- don't always trust the executive. -->The second gives a reason for questioning that support.

The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; --> Executive buying their own bank's share.
The second gives a reason for questioning that support.-->Sometimes it is a calculated attempt by executive to KNOWINGLY buy shares of their failing institute to pretend everything is great

betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 17 Jul 2016, 23:30, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8003
Location: Pune, India
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2016, 22:35
BrainLab wrote:
Hi Karishma, thanks a lot for the response. I actually would like to know, whether the statements below are alternative wordings for a conclusion

argument as a whole seeks to explain
the argument seeks to establish

the argument seeks to establish - Yes, the argument establishes the conclusion

argument as a whole seeks to explain - this is unlikely to be a part of a usual argument with premises/conclusion etc. It might be a part of a plan/hypothesis/phenomenon kind of question. If you can provide links to questions in which you encountered these, I can provide more detailed explanations.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Posts: 89
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2016, 01:40
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hi Karishma are there any Intermediate Conclusion also in the whole argument here?

I think these words because, since, hence, and thus are also the marker of conclusion, Right?
_________________

Richa Champion | My GMAT Journey - 470 720 740

Target 760+

Not Improving after Multiple attempts. I can guide You.
Contact me richacrunch2@gmail.com

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8003
Location: Pune, India
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2016, 00:11
crunchboss wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hi Karishma are there any Intermediate Conclusion also in the whole argument here?

I think these words because, since, hence, and thus are also the marker of conclusion, Right?

Because and since (used in the sense of because) indicate premises. They indicate beginning of clauses where the author is trying to give data/reasons for his opinion (which is the conclusion).
Hence and thus indicate conclusions.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 24 May 2014
Posts: 97
Location: India
GMAT 1: 590 Q39 V32
GRE 1: 310 Q159 V151
GRE 2: 312 Q159 V153
GPA: 2.9
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2016, 03:51
Hey everyone,

Guess it would be better when we can understand the role of the two boldfaced parts of the sentence. The second part gives a reason for not assuming that since executives are buying shares of their company, the company is doing well.

Option D & E can be ruled out because the first 'bold face' is not the circumstance, it is just a fact, evidence..The second part can be considered as a circumstance, reason because the actual reason for buying shares is captured.

Option B & C can be ruled out because the second bold face is not the conclusion but the reason, the conclusion is that 'such reasoning might well be overoptimistic.

Leaving option A as the answer.
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2016
Posts: 8
Schools: AGSM '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.83
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2016, 04:05
Hello guys.

"Explanation that the argument seeks to establish" - does this phrase always refer to the main conclusion of the argument?

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3273
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2016, 08:44
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Mamyan94 wrote:
Hello guys.

"Explanation that the argument seeks to establish" - does this phrase always refer to the main conclusion of the argument?

"Explanation" should generally refer to a premise, whereas something "that the argument seeks to establish" should generally be a conclusion. When both are together ("explanation that the argument seeks to establish"), then it possibly refers to an intermediate conclusion which is used as a premise for a final conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2014
Posts: 61
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 580 Q41 V28
GPA: 3.8
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2017, 10:20
I was confused between A & D.Unfortunately chose D. while A correctly refers " the second gives a reason for questioning....". I chose D primarily because 1st bold face describes a circumstances, which author justifies the conclusion in 2nd Bold face line. Can anybody clear the logic behind the correct answer choice
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1527
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2017, 19:11
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
merajul wrote:
I was confused between A & D.Unfortunately chose D. while A correctly refers " the second gives a reason for questioning....". I chose D primarily because 1st bold face describes a circumstances, which author justifies the conclusion in 2nd Bold face line. Can anybody clear the logic behind the correct answer choice

Quote:
(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

The passage states that "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank", but the main goal of the argument is not to explain this phenomenon. The main goal of the argument is to conclude that the reasoning of the bank's depositors might well be overoptimistic. Note that the author does not definitively conclude that, in this case, the executives bought shares in their own bank to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

Several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank. As a result of this evidence, the bank's depositors believe that top executives have faith in the bank's financial soundness and that rumors that the bank is facing impending financial collapse must be false. In other words, depositors believe that executives' buying of shares in their own bank is a sign of the bank's financial soundness. However, the author presents an alternative explanation: executives' buying shares in their own bank might be a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

The first boldfaced portion is the evidence used by depositors to arrive at their conclusion, and the second boldfaced portion is a possibility presented to show that the explanation assumed by the depositors may not be correct. So choice (A) is correct.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset -- Wednesdays, February 14 - April 4!

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99... in any section order

Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 22
Schools: Yale '20 (I)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Re: OG - Since it has become known that several [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2017, 02:12
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hello. Thankyou for the explanation.

Can you help me understand why "E" is wrong. The BF1 describes the situation that bank executives have been buying shares. The whole argument is revolved around this situation, evaluating whether this is right or wrong. BF2- It states that this statement is the premise supporting the conclusion that "reasoning might be overoptimistic".

Re: OG - Since it has become known that several   [#permalink] 20 Jun 2017, 02:12

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 70 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by