Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older

Question

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant

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

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

Similar question from GMATPrep  :

Argument Evaluation

Situation  
Delta switched from technologies using fossil fuels to ones using electricity. It has been asked whether this results in less fossil fuel used per level of output. The answer is that it does.

Reasoning  
 What roles do the two boldfaced portions play in the argument?  The first boldfaced statement is simply asserted by the passage. But the second boldfaced statement, when it is first introduced, is not asserted to be true, but rather is identified as something that might be inferred from the first statement. By the end of the passage the argument concludes that the second statement is true.

(A) This option simply reverses the roles that the statements play in the argument.

(B) Correct . This option identifies the roles the boldfaced portions play.

(C) Nothing in the passage is intended to support the first statement; and the second statement is not supposed to call the first into question.

(D) This correctly identifies the role of the first statement, but the second boldfaced portion does not call the argument's conclusion into question—it is part of a sentence that refers to the question whether that conclusion can be drawn from the first statement.

(E) Again, this is only half right. The second boldfaced portion is not offered as support for the conclusion; if it were offered as such support, the argument would be guilty of circular reasoning, since the second boldfaced portion states exactly what the argument concludes.

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

I'm happy to help with this.

First of all, this is an Official Guide question. It's in the OG12, CR #97. It's a great question, but it happens to be one of the questions omitted in the transition from OG12 to OG 13. The word " content " just means --- the insides, the stuff that makes something up. The contents of a box are what's in the box. The contents of the human torso are all the organs that keep us alive. The content of a conclusion is what the conclusion says, the point it is making. Under most circumstances, there's not really a meaningful distinction between " the conclusion " and " the content of the conclusion " --- in other words, a sentence that just says the conclusion is both of these at once. The phrase " content of the conclusion " is sometimes used to emphasize the contrast with something else outside the conclusion, for example, something supporting the conclusion. Also, notice in this particular argument, the conclusion is not really said in words. ( More on that in a moment .) Reading the passage, we can get the idea of what the conclusion is saying, that is to say, we can infer the " content " of the conclusion, even though the conclusion does not appear explicitly in black & white. I believe this is precisely why the answers in this question use this particular term. OK. What's the conclusion in this argument? It's tricky, because the author asks a question, and then answers " yes " to that question. That " yes " answer could be called a kind of "conclusion", but in that form, it doesn't tell us the content of the conclusion, that is, what exactly is being concluded. In order to state the content of the conclusion, we would have to re-write the question as an affirmative statement: It can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly . That's the content of the conclusion, and it is not stated explicitly as a conclusion in the passage --- it only appears as part of a question in the text of the passage. If we wanted to be hypertechnical, we could say: Conclusion = " Yes ." (printed explicitly, but devoid of information; it's more of a proxy for the conclusion) Content of the Conclusion = " It can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly " (what the conclusion actually concludes, although it's not stated explicitly) The GMAT is never going to ask you to be hypertechnical like this. Basically, for almost all intents and purposes, " conclusion " and " content of the conclusion " mean the same things. To reach this conclusion, we need two pieces of data 1) Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. 2) The amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant. Either one of those, by itself and without the other, would not be sufficient to guarantee the conclusion, but together, they provide a very cogent argument for the conclusion. Those are the two bold statements, and together, they support the conclusion. Does all this make sense? Mike

KarishmaB · Answer

Here is the link to the video solution of a similar questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY

In bold faced questions, quickly break down the argument to see what role each statement is playing.

Premises:
1. Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. (Data given to us to support the conclusion)
2. the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant. (Again, data provided to support the conclusion)

What is the conclusion? By giving this data, what is the author trying to say?
- for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly
He says, 'whether it can be concluded' and then says 'The answer, clearly, is yes'. So this is how he has given the conclusion.

According to what is in bold, choose your answer. In the original question, the answer is (B).

_________________

-
Start FREE with selected GMAT/EA Content upon registration at anaprep.com

YouTube Channel: karishma.anaprep

Signature Read More

seongbae · Answer

another vote for (B). i just looked at the second part...which is not quite a conclusion. the conclusion is "the new technologies allow Delta Products Inc less fuel to produce same output..." the second highlighted part provides content for the conclusion.

goldgoldandgold · Answer

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.

Look at the second part of the question - "the second identifies the content of that conclusion"

Now question to yourself - Does the second bold faced does that?

Now go back and check for it and you will realize that the second bold faced does identifies what the conclusion is when it says - "The question .....is"

And obviously the first bold faced supports the conclusion as to why Delta moved partly towards electricity

Hope that helps

siddhans · Answer

Why is it D...the second boldface calls the conclusion into question ..The reason I am saying this is because before the second boldaface it says : - " The question has been raised whether i ...... "

KarishmaB · Answer

I think you meant to ask why the answer is not D.
The most important step in CR questions is 'identifying the conclusion'. What is the conclusion in this argument?
The conclusion is the author's opinion, the point that he/she is trying to make. The conclusion is that Delta's operation causes less fossil fuel to be consumed now.
The second boldface part is only "for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly" which is exactly what the conclusion is. It gives the content of the conclusion. 
There are many ways of giving the content of the conclusion. Say the conclusion is 'X'. You can say:
So we can conclude X.
or 
Can we conclude X? Yes we can.

A statement that calls the conclusion into question would give an argument that would be against the conclusion.

raghavakumar85 · Answer

According to what is given as bold phrases.. I feel the answer must 'B'e B

the second bold phrase just takes content of the overall sentence 'the question is...' and in the next sentence, it is stated that the answer is YES. So B it is..

BrainLab · Answer

was stucked between B and D. 
First BF: Fact / Evidence / Support to the conclusion
Second BF: hmm... the word  WETHER  makes it  NEUTRAL , because we don't know the answer yet. 
 Conclusion : clearly -->  YES

(A) The  first  identifies the  content  of the conclusion of the argument;  the second provides support for that conclusion.  
(B) The first provides  support  for the  conclusion  of the argument; the second identifies the  content of that conclusion  -  CORRECT

(C) The  first  states the  conclusion  of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D)  The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument;   the second calls that conclusion into question.  -->  to call into question -means smth. negative for the conclusion, but the 2nd BF is not negative (to make a question has not the same impact as call into question on the GMAT , the word wether is neutral 
(E)Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument -  second BF is neutral - doesn't support the conclusion

kinjiGC · Answer

There are two versions of questions:

Version : 1  
 
 Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. 
The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly . The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant.

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

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

Solution:
1st Bold Faced
 Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. 
This is a fact and it also supports the conclusion. 
What is the conclusion: 
clearly, is yes (that for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly)
And 
2nd Bold Faced
 for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly 
is part of the full conclusion.
The author infers that  Yes, for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly

Now lets do POE:

(A) The first identifies the  content of the conclusion  of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
 First is a fact that supports the conclusion but not the "content of the conclusion"

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
 Correct because of the above reasoning

(C) The first states the  conclusion  of the argument; the second  calls that conclusion  into question.
 1st supports the the conclusion and doesn't state the conclusion of the argument 
 2nd states the conclusion and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second  calls that conclusion  into question.
 2nd states the conclusion and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
 2nd states the conclusion, option B) is better than Option E)

Version 2:

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. 
The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes,  since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant .

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

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

As the analysis is same for both the version as premise is same, lets do the POE:

(A) The first identifies  the content of the conclusion  of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
 First is a fact that supports the conclusion but not the "content of the conclusion"

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second  identifies the content of that conclusion .
 2nd BF doesn't identify the content of the conclusion. It supports the conclusion

(C) The first  states the conclusion of the argument ;  the second calls that conclusion into question .
 1st supports the the conclusion and doesn't states the conclusion of the argument 
 2nd also supports the argument and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second  calls that conclusion into question .
 2nd also supports the argument and definitely doesn't calls that conclusion into conclusion

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
 Correct as both the statements supports the argument

aviejay · Answer

1. What is meant by identifying the content of conclusion?
2. How is BF1 supporting the conclusion? How is it supporting "The answer, clearly, is yes". It is only a fact that has been stated and which forms the base of the argument. To support a conclusion, we need to have a fact that makes the conclusion more believable. Simply stating that "elta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity." does not make the conclusion more believable that "The answer, clearly, is yes". Else, the question that has been raised in the argument and immediately after BF1 would not have been raised.

Please explain.

GMATNinja · Answer

First of all, check out this  earlier post  by  mikemcgarry . See if that helps with your first question.

As for your second question,  supporting  the conclusion does not necessarily imply  proving  the conclusion. For a given level of output, is Delta's operation now causing less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly? If we have no other information, then we have no evidence either way.

If I then tell you that Delta has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity, then this is  evidence  that Delta has reduced its consumption of fossil fuel. By itself, this does not  prove  that the conclusion is true, but it still provides  support  for the conclusion.

I hope that helps!

saby1410 · Answer

ChiranjeevSingh

please explain option B

SRH750 · Answer

Please check this link https://gmatwithcj.com/critical-reasonin ... st-partly/

panwaryamini · Answer

VeritasKarishma  - Thank you for providing the context. But, could you please explain why can't it be "E"? Since both the statements are providing support to the conclusion?

KarishmaB · Answer

No, the two boldface statements are not providing support to the conclusion. Premise 1 given above is boldface statement 1 and the content of the conclusion is the boldface statement 2. 
Premise 2 is not a boldface statement.

Look at the structure of the argument again.

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  -  Premise 1

The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly . The answer, clearly, is yes, -  Conclusion

since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant - Premise 2

adityaganjoo · Answer

Isn't the second Bold Face calling the content of the conclusion into question? I understand that the author is in favour of the conclusion, but isn't the specific bold face questioning the success of the conclusion? If so, shouldn't the answer be (D)?

GMATNinja · Answer

To "call something into question" means to  doubt  or  undermine  that thing. The second boldface isn't undermining the conclusion -- it's just  stating what the conclusion is actually about .

Exactly as written, the conclusion of this passage is: "The answer, clearly, is yes." This is the main point that the author argues, but it's not particularly useful on its own. In order to understand the author's conclusion, we need to know  what the author is actually saying "yes" to !

That "what" is provided in the second boldface. You can reconfigure the conclusion to read: "The answer, clearly, is yes:  for a given level of output Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. "

The second boldface contains the details of the author's conclusion, which fits perfectly with (B).

Something that "calls the conclusion into question" would be something that weakens the author's argument. For example, if the passage included information to show that a ton of fossil fuels are used in the new, electricity-powered processes, that might call the author's argument into question.

(D) is out because the second boldface doesn't weaken the author's argument. (B) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

gagan0303 · Answer

GMATNinja  Can you help me in understanding how the first BF is supporting the conclusion of the argument. I thought its an in-disputable fact here.

Please help me with this one.

GMATNinja · Answer

A "fact" can play any number of roles in an argument. For example, consider this argument:

"Every time I eat at In-n-Out Burger, I experience horrible indigestion the next day. I had In-n-Out yesterday, so today is going to be rough."

Here, I've listed two statements of fact:

1) "Every time I eat at In-n-Out Burger, I experience horrible indigestion the next day," and
2) "I had In-n-Out yesterday."

But  why  did I include these facts in my argument? To support the conclusion that "today is going to be rough."

Similarly, when dealing with BF questions you should ask yourself  why  the author included a particular piece of the argument. The first BF tells you that Delta has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. Why does the author include this information? It serves as a piece of evidence that Delta has reduced its consumption of fossil fuel. Sure, it doesn't  prove  that the conclusion must be true -- but it does provide some support.

I hope that helps!

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older

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