Adults have the right to vote; so should adolescents. Admittedly, adol

confused how the statement qualifies as conceding a point.
concede:
(1) admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it:
(2) surrender or yield (something that one possesses):

The argument is predicated on the fact that adults and adolescents are different - so how does the statement in question qualify as a concession?
Unless they are using the word concede as a synonym for "acknowledge".
IMO poor word choice.

1. conclusion: adults cannot be expected to represent the interests of adolescents.
2. Premise or fact: adolescents and adults are not the same

(A) It presents the conclusion of the argument.
This is not the conclusion. there is no premise supporting this statement, it can not be the conclusion

(B) It makes a key word in the argument more precise.
it does not focuses on any one specific part of the argument

(C) It illustrates a consequence of one of the claims that are used to support the conclusion.
intermediate claim: then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests represented. re-worded: interests of adolescents will be represented by only giving the adolescents to vote. This supports the main conclusion.
The stated premise does nothing to describe the result of this claim.


(D) It distracts attention from the point at issue.
This supports the conclusion and is relevant for the argument

(E) It concedes a point that is then used to support the conclusion.
adolescents and adults are not the same means they both represent their own interests.Hence adults cannot be expected to represent the interests of adolescents.

Premise: Admittedly, adolescents and adults are not the same. But to the extent that adolescents and adults are different, adults cannot be expected to represent the interests of adolescents. If adults cannot represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests represented. - The author agrees that adults and adolescents are different, however, argues that this difference should not be the basis of adults representing the interests of adolescents. Further, he/she cements his/her argument by saying that because adults can't represent the interests of adolescents and to represent adolescents, adolescents must be given voting rights.

Conclusion: Adults have the right to vote; so should adolescents. - Just like the adults, adolescents must give vote. Only then adolescents interests are represented.

Only C and E make up to the point of being the contenders. Others are rejected for the highlighted text.
'Consequence' and conclusion both come after something has happened, only that consequence happens naturally - if i say. In C, 'a consequence' seems to suggest that because of adolescents' interests, adults and adolescents are different. And that's too vague of an answer to choose.
The statement is ultimately supporting the conclusion of the argument, it's just that it is laying foundation of that support.

BTW did i use the idiom 'because of' correctly. Let me know.

Answer E.­

nightblade354
Although i get the point that Option E captures the essence of what the Phrase is, I was unable to Eliminate option C on solid grounds. Please help me understand this better.

Adults have the right to vote; so should adolescents. Admittedly, adolescents and adults are not the same. But to the extent that adolescents and adults are different, adults cannot be expected to represent the interests of adolescents. If adults cannot represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests represented.

P: Adults cannot be expected to represent the interests of adolescents
P: If adults cannot represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests represented
C: Adults have the right to vote; so should adolescents

OK, so adolescents should vote because adults won't vote in their interest and, as a result, the only way to get those interests is to have them vote. A premise, supporting a sub conclusion, supporting a main conclusion.

The statement that adolescents and adults are not the same plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

(C) It illustrates a consequence of one of the claims that are used to support the conclusion. -- OK, so let's break down the statement: the bolded portion. I did not touch on it above because it doesn't really fit. The argument is well grounded, but you have this random statement that runs counter to what we are looking for. (C) says it is illustrating a consequence (issue/outcome) from one of the premises. Hmm. The actual statement is: Admittedly, adolescents and adults are not the same.

Let's go look at premise 1: Adults cannot be expected to vote for kids' interests. Is the fact that adults are not the same as kids a consequence of this? Think of it like this: Because adults cannot vote in kid's interest, therefore kids are not the same as adults. This statement makes no sense. If you flipped the statement, it would make more sense, but you would still need to assume that correlation is causation.

The same process can as above can be used for premise 2: If adults cannot represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests represented. Therefore, adults and kids are different. Again, the statement makes very little sense because the support doesn't help create the conclusion. We have to assume in this world that if someone is different, they have different interests. And we cannot make this assumption.

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.