Bunuel
Politician: the political situation between Countries X and Y is explosive and may pose a serious threat to the stability of the entire region. My concern is founded both on the intelligence reports we have received and on the saddening end of negotiations between the respective ministers of foreign affairs. The suggested peace talks may be helpful, but I remain concerned.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is an assumption drawing on following pieces of evidence; the second is a consideration against the opinion of the argument's author.
B. The first is a fact resulting from following facts; the second is the conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is an inference; the second is a consideration in favor of the conclusion of the argument.
D. The first is a fact which enhances following facts; the second is a prediction.
E. The first is a conclusion drawing on following pieces of evidence; the second is a consideration against the opinion of the argument's author.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Politician:
the political situation between Countries X and Y is explosive and may pose a serious threat to the stability of the entire region. My concern is founded both on the intelligence reports we have received and on the saddening end of negotiations between the respective ministers of foreign affairs.
The suggested peace talks may be helpful, but I remain concerned.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is an assumption drawing on following pieces of evidence; the second is a consideration against the opinion of the argument's author.
Incorrect.
This is a Boldface Type question, in which you are required to define the role of the two boldface sections in the argument. Read the argument and break it down using indicative words:
- Sentences 1 is the conclusion because it is founded on the data that follows it (My concern is founded both on...). It also presents the politician's opinion.
- Sentence 2 contains two premises, one about the intelligence reports and another about the end of the negotiations.
- Sentence 3 begins with the second boldface portion, which is another premise (fact) that weighs against the conclusion (the politician's concern).
An assumption is an unfounded statement upon which a conclusion is based. However, the first boldface portion is based on other facts; it is the conclusion. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.B. The first is a fact resulting from following facts; the second is the conclusion of the argument.
Incorrect.
According to the argument's second sentence, the first portion is founded upon something, meaning it is the conclusion. It therefore cannot be correctly characterized as a fact (=premise). You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest, but the second part of the answer choice is also flawed - the second boldface portion is not the conclusion of the argument, as the argument's bottom line is that the "politician remains concerned".C. The first is an inference; the second is a consideration in favor of the conclusion of the argument.
Incorrect.
While this answer choice defines the first boldface part correctly, it defines the second incorrectly. The second portion includes a consideration (the suggested peace talks) that weakens the politician's concerns, rather than supports them.D. The first is a fact which enhances following facts; the second is a prediction.
Incorrect.
The first portion is founded upon something, meaning it is the conclusion. The clue to the fact that the first portion is a conclusion can be found in the first words of the second sentence: My concern is founded both on...etc. Also, the first boldface portion does not enhance the following facts - it is based on them.
The second portion says The suggested peace talks may be helpful. This sounds like a prediction, or conclusion; but does this make sense? Look at what the argument is saying: the second portion cannot be the conclusion, as it contradicts the politician's concern - which is the argument's real conclusion.
The bottom line is: it's not enough to mechanically identify a conclusion or premise just according to clues - such as a sentence that sounds like a prediction. Clues are a good start, but the characterization of the boldface has to be validated by the logic of the argument.E. The first is a conclusion drawing on following pieces of evidence; the second is a consideration against the opinion of the argument's author.[/quote]
The first portion is founded upon the premises while the second portion is a premise which weighs against the opinion of the argument's author, i.e., the politician's concerns.