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

Solution
Understand the passage

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

A public health expert offers his opinion on public health messages.
He says that increasing the urgency of a public health message is likely to produce a negative result or an undesired result.
What that means is, instead of increasing the urgency of the message, people might choose to ignore it.

In addition to irritating the majority who already behave responsibly,

He goes on to offer his reasoning behind this opinion.
He believes that apart from annoying most of the people who are already responsible towards health,

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

attempts to increase the urgency of public health messages might weaken the impact of all government announcements on health by somehow making people feel that these messages are being overly careful/ (messages are being unnecessarily alarmist)

And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.

The author adds that there is no reason to believe that people who ignore controlled voices will actually listen to anyone shouting.

Pre-thinking
1st Bold Face
Role = claim made by the author
Relationship = It is the main conclusion of the argument

2nd Bold Face
Role = opinion of the author
Relationship = offered in support of the main conclusion

Overall
Go in the same direction.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
The first is a conclusion

Yes. It is the main conclusion of the passage

for which support is provided.

Yes. BF2 provides support for it

but is not the argument's main conclusion;

No.

the second is an unsupported premise

Yes. It does not have any support in the passage as such

 supporting the arguments main conclusion

Yes.

Thus, this choice is incorrect

B
The first is a premise

No. It is the conclusion of the argument

supporting the only explicit conclusion;

No.

so is the second.

Yes. The second boldface supports BF1

Thus, this is not the correct choice.

C
The first is the argument's main conclusion;

Yes

the second supports that conclusion

Yes.

and is itself a conclusion

No. It is not a derived statement and hence cannot be called a conclusion

for which support is provided

No. No support is provided for the send boldface.

Thus, this is not the correct choice.

D
The first is a premise

No.

 supporting the argument's only conclusion;

No. Because it itself is the main conclusion

 the second is that conclusion.

No. It is just the author’s opinion acting as a premise to the main conclusion.

Thus, this is not the correct choice.

E
The first is the argument‘s only explicit conclusion;

Yes. It is the main conclusion

 the second is a premise

Yes. It is just the author’s opinion acting as a premise to the main conclusion

supporting that conclusion

Yes.

Thus, this is the correct choice.

Let’s understand the structure of the Public health expert’s argument-

Author’s conclusion- Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive.

Why does he think so?

Reasons/evidence/ premises-

- It can irritate the majority who already behave responsibly
- It may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious
- There is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.

Because of all the three reasons above, the author thinks increasing the urgency of public health message may be counterproductive.

When you ask “why” does the author think so (author’s conclusion), the answers you get are your premises. Now, let’s look at the options-

(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 argument's main conclusion.
The first is the main conclusion of the argument. Eliminate.

(B) The first is a premise supporting the only explicit conclusion; so is the second.
The first is not a premise but the main conclusion of the argument. Eliminate.

(C) The first is the argument's main conclusion; the second supports that conclusion and is itself a conclusion for which support is provided.
The first part of the option is correct; the second is not a conclusion but a premise that lends support to the conclusion. Eliminate.

(D) The first is a premise supporting the argument's only conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
The first is not a premise and the second is not the conclusion. Eliminate.

(E) The first is the argument‘s only explicit conclusion; the second is a premise supporting that conclusion.
The first is the only explicit conclusion; the second is a premise supporting that conclusion. Correct.


Vishnupriya
GMAT SME

Public health expert:
Conclusion: Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive.
1st Supporting Premise: 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.
2nd Supporting Premise: And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.

(C) The first is the argument's main conclusion; the second supports that conclusion and is itself a conclusion
for which support is provided.
Problem is the 2nd half of the sentence: If you look for why "it may undermine all government..." you will not find any support in the argument.
The last line of this argument is another premise supporting the conclusion presented in 1st line.

(E) The first is the argument‘s only explicit conclusion; the second is a premise supporting that conclusion.
CORRECT

Hi,

As per MGMAT CR process for Describe the role (Bold face) questions, the following is an accurate methodology to crack this question type.
I was able to solve this using the same approach and its quite helpful.

First bold face says "Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive."
This is the authors Conclusion and mark it as "B1 = C", indicating Conclusion.
Coming to the 2nd Bold face, authors gives additional information about the above stated conclusion and he is the right guy to be a Premise. ( Since, author is giving more facts about the stated conclusion.)
Now mark it as "B2 = P".

Go on the answer choices to find out for 'C' & 'P' combination.

There is only one option for this combination and so the answer is "E".


Please hit kudos it you like this post!

Yes, a premise is a statement that must be taken as true, and cannot be questioned.

But this doesn't mean that the premise itself must indicate that something is definitely true. Consider this instructional example:


The premise (which is bolded) clearly supports the weatherman's conclusion. However, the premise doesn't read, "It will definitely rain." The premise reads, "It's possible that we'll see heavy rainfall."

We take the entire statement to be true, but the statement itself tells us what is possible. It doesn't matter whether this forecast only tells us what might happen. The overall statement is still a valid premise.

Coming back to our OG question, here's the conclusion again:


And here are the two premises backing up this conclusion:

• Increasing the urgency of a public health message irritates the majority who already behave responsibly.
• Increasing the urgency of a public health message undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious.

Both premises support the public health expert's conclusion. The second premise doesn't offer a 100% confirmation that increasing the urgency will undermine all government pronouncements. But we don't need that in order to accept this as a premise supporting the conclusion.

I hope this helps!

You are right that the second boldfaced portion is the author's opinion. This opinion is used in support of the main conclusion. However, there is nothing in the passage to support that opinion.

Public health expert: 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. And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.

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

* BOLD FACE Q: First ID the Conclusion and then find out how the BF relates to it.
> BF1 = clearly the conclusion of the passage
> BF2 = clearly supports BF1.
>Other: last sentence is further explaining why BF1 is main conclusion, giving additional info

(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.
- BF1 is the argument's main conclusion & BF2 is a supported premise

(B) The first is a premise supporting the only explicit conclusion; so is the second.
- BF1 is NOT a premise, it is the Conclusion

(C) The first is the argument's main conclusion; the second supports that conclusion and is itself a conclusion for which support is provided.
- BF2 is not itself a conclusion for which support is provided...

(D) The first is a premise supporting the argument's only conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
- BF2 is NOT a conclusion, its a premise.

(E) The first is the argument‘s only explicit conclusion; the second is a premise supporting that conclusion.
- Correct as is.

Kudos please if you find this helpful

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.

This is a great question. And I agree with you. I think the second boldface has a conclusion and a premise for that conclusion all within the boldface. However, my guess is that the GMAT believes the following:
(conclusion + premise) cannot be treated as a conclusion
(conclusion + premise) can be treated as a premise

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!

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.

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.

StandardizedNerd


I can't say I see the parallel you are going for. The final sentence is presented as an additional measure to support the main point. This is driven home by the fact that the sentence starts with "And." It's another, separate reason. I wouldn't introduce a single piece of support with "And": "You should pay for the wine. And you drank all of it."

Why is C wrong? Isn't the second part a subconclusion for which we can say support is provided in terms of 'by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious"?

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

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.

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.