Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming electi

Question

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections.  The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes . When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint.  As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.  With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.
 
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
 
A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.

kavach · Answer

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

This is a fairly easy question. 
Before we see the answer choices, let's analyze the question. 
With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall. This is the conclusion of the argument.

Now how the Political Analyst has arrived at the conclusion is by setting the premise that Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. Why are the chances low ? The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.

So that means both BF is in a way used to support the conclusion of the analyst.

Now let's get to POE.

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

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
This is incorrect because the first is not a position that the argument seeks to challenge

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
This is incorrect because the first is not a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge AND even second is not a judgment that weakens that position.

C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
This is incorrect because The first is not the only explicit conclusion in the argument.

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
This is the correct choice. As it matches with our prethinking.

E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
This is incorrect because the second is not the conclusion of the argument.

Hence the answer is D.

Kinshook · Answer

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections.  The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes . When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint.  As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.  With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

Conclusion/Prediction:  With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.
 First Boldface:  The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes.  This is a premise supporting the main conclusion/prediction. 
 Second Boldface:   As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.  This is a judgement supporting the main conclusion/prediction.

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

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. 
The first is NOT a position that the argument seeks to challenge.  Incorrect

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. 
The first is NOT a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is NOT a judgment that weakens that position.  Incorrect

C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. 
The first is NOT the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is NOT a premise that supports that conclusion.  Incorrect

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. 
The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.  Correct

E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. 
The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is NOT that conclusion.  Incorrect

IMO D

MayankSingh · Answer

IMO-D

Passage Analysis:

Prediction (Political Analyst)   -- Senator Frank’s   odds are low   in the upcoming elections. .... 
  Supporting Premise    The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes.  
 Example:  When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. 
  Judgement:    As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.  
  Premise:   With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall (Sign of unpleasant destiny)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Note:    Judgement Vs Conclusion:- In terms of critical reasoning arguments,
# A   'judgment'    is any statement deduced from other statements in the passage; such judgments may be used as stepping stones on the way to the ultimate conclusion of the passage.
# The word   'conclusion'   is generally reserved for the final, principal conclusion of the passage. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lets Analysis Judgement :    As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.  
  If True:   i.e. Frank made no enemies, then Prediction/position that Odds are low against him is  strengthen 
  If False:   i.e Frank made enemies, then the prediction/position that Odds are low against him is  weaken. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. The  first  is a position that the  argument  seeks to  challenge ; the second is a  judgment in support  of the  position  that the  argument seeks to establish .---  Incorrect  ---- First BF is in support to what the argument seeks to establish & not challenge. Second BF is a judgement, if true supports argument.

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the  argument seeks to challenge  ; the second is a  judgment  that  weakens  that position.---  Incorrect  ----The argument doesn't seeks to challenge rather seeks to establish a position. Second BF if false, weakens the position but if true strengthens the position.

C. The first is the  only explicit conclusion  in the argument; the  second  is a premise that supports  that conclusion .---  Incorrect  ----First BF is not a conclusion but a supporting premise. Second BF, if true , supports the position that argument seeks to establish and not the one referred to in this option.

D. The  first  is a premise that has been used to  support  the  prediction that the argument seeks to make ; the  second  is a judgment that,  if true , will  support the prediction ----  Correct  ----First BF is premise that supports the prediction/position argument seeks to establish. Also, Second BF is a judgement, if true, supports the position/prediction as discussed above.

E. The  first  is a premise that has been used to  support  the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the  second  is that  conclusion ----  Incorrect  ---- The first BF supports the position but the Second BF is not the conclusion. It is a judgement that if true support the position argument seeks to establish.

JonShukhrat · Answer

Let’s first clarify the message of the political analyst:

The message in short : The senator will probably not win. The reason is his soft political style. In other words, he agrees with both conservatives and liberals. That’s why he doesn’t have friends who could support him. He must lose.

Well, the easiest way to sort out the argument is to put ourselves into the analyst’s shoes.

What is the main message we are going to deliver to our listener? – That’s our prediction. We are starting our speech with our prediction so that our listener could immediately realize our stance on the senator’s odds.

Why do we begin to talk about his political style next? Or what do we intend to do by talking about it? – Logically, we are going to explain to our listener why we so predicted. We so predicted because we think that he has bad political style. However, before telling why this style will not help him, we first need to tell what kind of style he has. It is avoiding foes.

We are  not challenging  this piece of information (first boldface) because we agree that he indeed could avoid foes. We are just showing that this style was a double edged sword because he didn’t make friends either. No friends - no support. That is the reason why we predicted that he will probably not win.

In conclusion : We now understand that we used the first boldface (premise) to come to our assessment or judgment (second boldface) that he has not friends.  If that’s true  and he indeed doesn’t have friends who could vote for him, then his odds are low. Thus the correct answer choice is   D  .

Let’s analyze other answer choices.

A.  We are not challenging first boldface because we agree that he avoided foes. Actually we are not challenging anything in our argument.

B.  Once again, we are not challenging anything in our argument. We are just talking about the second and less desired effect of his style.

C.  The first is not the conclusion, but the premise. The second is not supporting the first one. In reality that is the first helps come to the second.

E.  The second is not our conclusion. It is the reason why we think that he will not win. The second is not the main message we want to deliver, and therefore is not a conclusion.

Hence  D

Kumar Utkarsh · Answer

Main conclusion: Due to his self earned reoutation of soft leader, Senator has low odds in the upcoming elections.
BF1: It is a premise to support the conclusion.
BF2: It is an intermediate conclusion supporting the main conclusion.

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. -Incorrect- First is a premise supporting the conclusion and not against the arguement. The second is intermediate conclusion.
 B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. -Incorrect-First is a premise as stated but second doesn't weaken the conclusion instead it support the main conclusion. 
 C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. -Incorrect-First is not any kind of conclusion, it's a premise. Second is an intermediate conclusion.
 D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. - Correct-as per prethinking-first is a premise supporting main conclusion and second, if true, will indeed support the main conclusion. 
 E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. -Incorrect-First is a premise but second is not the conclusion that first seeks to support.

Answer:  D

GKomoku · Answer

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

Let's decode this passage:

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections.
Author starts this statement with the speaker. Speaker here - Political Analyst. So we can expect some information about politics, political situation in some country or so.
Further, we have fount out that Senator Frank has low chances in the upcoming elections.
Premise - gives general information about current situation of Senator in the election.

The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes.
From this piece of information we can say that Senator Frank is current senator. And he generally has a clear political style avoid rivals. He tries act neutrally/positively with opposition, so he avoid any conflict situations.
Premise - gives additional information about Senator's political style, later this information will be used to support intermediate conclusion, hece main conclusion.

When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint.
Conservatives pressed hard (insisted on their demand) and Senator Frank fulfilled Conservatives demand. Liberals pressed hard (insisted on their demand) and Senator Frank also did not disappoint them, and fulfilled Liberals demand.
Premise - shows situation when Senator followed his style, also supports intermediate conclusion.

As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.
At the end, indeed he made no foes (rivals), but due to his (clear political style) approach he has no friends either.
Intermediate conclusion - finalize all the premises and gives information about in what condition Senator is now, supports prediction made further that as in this condition he must the writing .

With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.
So he deserved 'a soft leader' name, and as a holder/owned of this name he must see the writing on the wall. It is not quite clear what writing is it.
All the way long author lead as to this conclusion (prediction let's say), that Senator must see the writing. This is the main conclusion of the argument.

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

POE

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
~~E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.~~

D is the answer.

VKat · Answer

Hello team,

Please answer my query.

How second bold face is not the conclusion?

As per me, the first sentence of para, odds are low, leads to second bold face. So it can be treated as conclusion. Please revert.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

The second boldface is stated as a fact. 
Facts stand by themselves, because they're known to be true. Statements of fact do not need to be supported by premises or logical argumentation, so  a fact CANNOT possibly be the conclusion of an argument.

This does not change if the history behind a fact is explained—or if some cause is described that has the given fact as its effect. No matter what, facts are facts are facts—they're true by themselves regardless of whether their history is narrated.

In this passage, the second boldface statement...
 
... is still true even if it's stated all by itself . (A young reporter, for instance, could simply observe directly that this statement is true, even if she was too young to witness the earlier history that led to it.)

It's a fact, so it can't be a conclusion.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming electi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming electi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards