Public health expert: Increasing the urgency of a public health messag

GMATNinja Thanks for the explanation; however, I recall a premise could also be an intermediate conclusion. I was just wondering if the sentence "....irritating majority of people who behave responsibly" does the quoted sentence not support the BF2-...by convincing people that such message are overly cautious.

Thanks in advance.

Does the fact that increasing the urgency of public health messages irritates those who behave responsibly support the idea that the practice convinces people such messages are overly cautious? Not really. It seems like these are two different effects of increasing the urgency of public health messages. It’s not that irritating those who behave responsibly convinces people such messages are overly cautious. Rather, increasing the urgency has two different effects:

(1) Those who behave responsibly are irritated.
(2) Others are convinced such messages are overly cautious (and presumably don’t behave responsibly as a result).

The relationship between these two facts is further clarified by the phrase “In addition to....” The use of this phrase indicates that we have two separate things. It’s not that the first supports the second. Instead, the result of increasing the urgency of public health messages is (1) in addition to (2).

I hope that helps!

MartyTargetTestPrep ,

Although, GMATNinja explained about how could in this passage a statement which looks like a conclusion can be a premise, I still could not convince myself about the explanation.
My question is for this statement
Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive. In addition to irritating the majority who already behave responsibly, it may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious.

Looking at the context of passage, we know for the fact that "increasing the urgency of public health message irritated the majority who already behave responsibly. Now the statement further states that" In addition to that, it may undermine all government pronouncements on health ------ " This is a pure speculation by the expert, but not a fact. We know premises are facts and cannot be questioned. Is there a difference between speculation and opinion ? A conclusion is an opinion. And opinions are speculations supported by premises in passage. Despite all this, how can the second boldface be a premise?

Now if what author opines as opinion or speculation can be a premise, then how do we differentiate between those sort of premise and conclusion. From what i have solved any CR till date, I was of this opinion that opinions or speculations expressed by authors are conclusions ,some may be main while some may be intermediate. if opinions can also be the premise ,then the fundamental upon i believed will be shaken.

I am requesting to please shed some light on this.

Thanks in advance for your explanation

The fact that a sentence uses the word "may" does not mean that that sentence does not state a fact.

Consider these sentences:

Alex may already be back from Nepal.

That water may be contaminated.

Both of those sentences state facts that could support conclusions even though both use "may."

For example:

Premise: That water may be contaminated.

Conclusion: Therefore, drinking it may result in contamination-related illness.

So, in the case of this question, we have the following:

Conclusion: Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive.

That conclusion is supported by some facts, among them the following:

Premise: It may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious.

What a cool Boldface question. The writer did a great job of making facts seem not to be facts.

Dear SME,
I have query regarding Option E, Since the second BF is an opinion of someone, It can be doubted or questioned.
But option E says it as Premise whih is must be true. I rejected E based on this logic.

egmat in your explanation for option C you have said no support is provided for second bold faced, 'And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.' is not the support ? what role does it play though

Let me take a shot at this.

What are 'measured voices' and 'shouting' doing here? First, let's relate the statement to the context. Essentially, in the context, the sentence means that there is no reason to believe that people who are ignoring a current public health message (measured voices) will listen to one with increased urgency (shouting).

What's the argument?

1. Increasing the urgency will distance many people

a. by irritating them
b. and by possibly making them undermine all government health pronouncements
2. Moreover, increasing the urgency will anyway not even be helpful for the target audience (if the current messages haven't been effective, there is no reason to believe that ones with increased urgency will be).

So, it seems that increasing the urgency will

1. distance many people
2. and not benefit anyone

That's why it may be counterproductive.


Another way to look at the argument:

How might increasing the urgency be counterproductive?

1. It will irritate many people
2. It may undermine all government health pronouncements
3. And, anyway if the current messages haven't been effective, there is no reason to believe that ones with increased urgency will be

Seen either way, the last sentence supports the conclusion in the first sentence.

Hope that helps.

Public health expert: Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive. – The author has presented an opinion here. Increasing the urgency (of a public health message) may be counter-productive.
(I’m wondering why might it be counterproductive. We’ll probably find out.)

In addition to irritating the majority who already behave responsibly, – So, one reason is that the increased urgency will irritate many of those people who perhaps do not need the health messages and already behave responsibly. (The phrase “In addition to” tells me that the author will present at least one more reason why increasing the urgency may be counterproductive.)

it may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious. – Another reason: people might start believing that the messages are overly cautious (guess ‘increasing the urgency’ will stretch things too far). And thus, they may not take any government pronouncement on health as seriously.

And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting. – What are ‘measured voices’ and ‘shouting’ doing here? First, let’s relate the statement to the context. Essentially, in the context, the sentence means that there is no reason to believe that people who are ignoring a current public health message (measured voices) will listen to one with increased urgency (shouting).


Author’s logic:
In the argument, the health expert’s main point is the first sentence: “Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counter-productive”
This point is supported by the following reasons

1. It would irritate many people
2. It may undermine all government health pronouncements
3. No reason to believe those who ignore the current health messages will listen to more urgent ones

So, on the one hand, the increased urgency might irritate many people who already behave responsibly and distance people from such messages in general, and on the other, it probably wouldn’t even resonate with those who do not currently behave responsibly (support). That’s why increasing urgency may be counterproductive (main point).



The two sections in boldface play which of the following roles in the public health expert's argument?

Prediction:
BF1 is the main point of the argument.
BF2 supports the main point.



A.The first is a conclusion for which support is provided. but is not the argument's main conclusion; the second is an unsupported premise supporting the arguments main conclusion.
Incorrect. First half: The first boldface is indeed a conclusion for which support is provided. However, BF1 is the main conclusion of the argument.
Second half: BF2 does not have any support. BF2 does support the main conclusion (BF1).
The first half is incorrect. The second half is correct.

B. The first is a premise supporting the only explicit conclusion; so is the second.
Incorrect. First half: BF1 itself is the only explicit conclusion of the argument. It does not support any other idea.
Second half: BF2 is indeed a premise supporting the only explicit conclusion (BF1).
The first half is incorrect. The second half is correct.

C. The first is the argument's main conclusion; the second supports that conclusion and is itself a conclusion for which support is provided.
Incorrect. First half: Yes, BF1 is the main conclusion
Second half: BF2 does support BF1.
However, BF2 does not have any support. The first half of the second sentence (irritating majority) and the last sentence (shouting doesn’t work) do not support BF2. They both offer support for the main point (BF1).
First half: Correct. Second half: Incorrect.

D. The first is a premise supporting the argument's only conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
Incorrect. First half: BF2 itself is the argument’s only conclusion.
Second half: BF2 is not a conclusion, it supports the only conclusion of the argument.

Another way to evaluate this answer choice: The statement states that BF1 supports BF2. We can check this:
Does BF1 support BF1? it doesn’t.
First half: Incorrect, Second half: Incorrect.

E. The first is the argument‘s only explicit conclusion; the second is a premise supporting that conclusion.
Correct. First half: Yes, BF1 is the only explicit conclusion.
Second half: BF2 does support BF1.
First half: Correct, Second half: Correct

1. The key to getting most boldface questions correct is understanding the passage well. If the passage is an argument, understand what the main point is, what supports it, What role does each idea play.

2. 24% people selected ‘C’ as their answer. For BF2 to be a conclusion, there would need to be support for it.


A. The 3rd statement or the first half of the 2nd statement does not support BF2.

A way to check is: e.g. Does <3rd statement> therefore <BF2> make sense?

‘There is no reason to believe that people who don’t listen to the current messages will listen to more urgent ones’
therefore
‘increasing the urgency of a public health message may undermine all government health pronouncements by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious’.

That doesn’t make sense. It is not like health pronouncements will get undermined because people might be stubborn.
This test can help us understand that the last statement or even the first half of the second sentence does not support BF2.

B. Some people consider that ‘by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious‘ supports ‘It may undermine all government pronouncements on health‘. While I agree with that view, we need to look if there is support offered for the entire boldfaced portion outside the boldfaced portion. There isn’t.

C. The last two sentences have the following structure:
In addition to X, Y. And Z. The structure itself indicates that none of X, Y and Z supports any of the others.

BF 1 = Main Conlcusion
BF 2 = Intermediate Conclusion.

How can we say that the second one is not a sub conclusion or a subordinate conclusion. ?

The second BF isn't a conclusion because there isn't anything in the passage that supports it. It's simply stated as a possible effect of increasing the urgency of a public health message. The author doesn't provide any evidence to convince us that this is in fact a real possibility -- we just have to accept it.

That's why (E) beats (C).

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja
For the person's question above "now as far as i know a premise is something which has to be taken as true and cannot be challenged or its validity cannot be question."

Isn't the difference here that a premise is what THE AUTHOR believes is true, but it does not necessarily need to be a real fact?

First we'll read through the argument to identify the conclusion while seeing how the bolded phrases can be interpreted. Thankfully the first bolded phrase is our conclusion, a lot of the phrases are supporting or providing additional context to "Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive". The second bolded phrase clearly supports the conclusion.

B and D can be eliminated since they don't identify the first phrase as the conclusion.

A can be eliminated since it states there are other conclusions, but we didn't see another conclusion in the argument.

C can be eliminated since the second bolded phrase is not a conclusion, it supports the conclusion.

E is correct since it identifies the first bolded phrase as the conclusion, and the second bolded phrase as support.

Thank you, Brian! Would an expert also be able to weigh in? DmitryFarber KarishmaB ?

The premises of the argument are the facts given by the author and need to be taken to be true.

Argument 1: There are many different types of mosses. One of them is green and slimy.

We need to take these statements to be true. There must be different types of mosses and one of them must be green and slimy.

Argument 2: Scientists believe that there are many different types of mosses. They think that one of them is green and slimy.

We need to take these statements to be true. Scientists must believe that there are many different types of mosses and one of them is green and slimy. Now whether what the scientists believe is true or not, we cannot say. There may be many different types of mosses and there may not be. All we need to take to be true is that scientists believe there are.

Note that the author's opinions are not premises. They form the conclusion.

i.e. if your argument has a statement that says - he is a bit eccentric, the rest of the statements are likely to explain why the author thinks he is eccentric e.g. He wears tattered clothes but drives fancy cars etc. We need to take "he wears tattered clothes' and 'he drives fancy cars' to be true.

When evaluating a CR question, a premise is something that must be taken as true in the context of the argument. But that doesn't mean the premise is a fact.

As an example, consider the following argument:

If money grew on trees, I could afford to buy a Rolls Royce.

Notice the premise of this argument ("if money grew on trees") is not a fact. Nonetheless, in the context of the argument, it serves as a premise. We couldn't weaken the argument by saying "money doesn't grow on trees." For the sake of the argument, we assume the premise is true.

Here's another example:

Economist: Based on my analysis, unemployment will be lower this year than last year. Thus, anyone who wants a job will probably be able to find one.

The idea that "unemployment will be lower this year" is not a fact. Rather, it's an opinion of the economist. But once again, it serves as premise. In other words, it supports the conclusion that "anyone who wants a job will probably be able to find one."

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja - then how does a conclusion differ from an opinion? Aren't both the same? Please help GN.

That's an interesting question! In some cases, you could probably make a statement that qualifies as both an opinion and a conclusion. Luckily, this passage doesn't require us to draw that distinction.

To eliminate (C), all we need to know is that the author doesn't provide any support for the second BF statement. For that reason alone, (C) can't be right. So fortunately, to get this one right, we don't need to worry about the exact definition of an opinion versus a conclusion.

I hope that helps!