Journalist: Every election year at this time the state government rele

The second statement is the main conclusion. The dude will run for office, so A

Posted from my mobile device

Second sentence definitely is a conclusion. One can identify it with a premise attached next to it "since ....".
To look at first bold faced .
the first does not perform action of either of three it does not state "The first sites a practice that the journalist seeks to defend".. option C
Is it not "The first states evidence bearing against the main conclusion of the argument"

Also it does not provide evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that supports a further conclusion stated in the argument."
Hence only first part of options A and B matches out of which only A approves of both correct identification.
Hence A
I used elimination technique for this passage.

Hi manishcmu

Could you please put down into words as to why you think that the first BF supports the conclusion?

Thanks

Hi GMATNinja - what does option A mean when option A says : ". The first provides information without which the argument lacks force"

Is option A, saying that bold face 1 is an assumption ?
OR

Is option A, saying that bold face 1 is a premise ?

I could not understand what the first half of option A is even saying : The first provides information without which the argument lacks force

It’s tempting to try and reword the information given in (A) to fit a category (such as premise, assumption, etc.) that we’re accustomed to working with. But it’s probably a better practice to take what the answer choice says at face value and see whether it accurately describes the role of the two boldface.

“To have force” means “to have strength.” So, is the first boldface a statement needed for the argument, as currently written, to have strength? Well, the entire conclusion of the argument (that Bergeron likely will run for governor) is based on the idea that the financial disclosure is a requirement that Bergeron has not met before this year. The first boldface is what confirms that candidates MUST make those disclosures. So, without that confirmation, the argument would have no strength because Bergeron would not be making those financial disclosures in order to be eligible to run for office.

As it turns out, the first boldface is, in fact, a premise (an assumption typically wouldn’t be explicitly stated). But given the question and the answer choices, that’s not nearly as important as the fact that the argument lacks force without that boldface statement.

I hope that helps!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.