GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Nov 2018, 23:17

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
• ### GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

09:00 AM PST

11:00 AM PST

Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

# Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1151
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2013, 06:33
9
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:30) correct 47% (01:27) wrong based on 685 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 33
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.9

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2013, 07:35
@marcab : which one 2nd bold line ...hr. in fact continious lines .....pls chk
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1151
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2013, 08:01
Actually this is the question. I too got it wrong and too feel pessimistic about this question.
_________________
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3306

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2013, 08:43
3
Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

Dude take control of the question.

Sometimes we tend to be confused by the question but the trick to these questions is to understand the overall structure and the sigle phrases.

The first is a fact or evidence. so I write evidece or something.

The second seems the conclusion I have doubts.

the third is not a conclusion is something similar to a fact or something. So the 2 $$IS$$ the conclusion.

Once you have established that, reorganize the information.

A premise or something; a conclusion and in the end a fact the in somehow support the conclusion

Now I have A and C (the others a clearly wrong)

But C says : The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

Basically the first one support something that the argument oppose as whole and the second undermine the first bold part and establish once again the start position.........mmmm it doesn't have much sense.

A The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

is accepted as true because we know thanks to "have begun" is already done by motorists. the second is the conclusion and then the argument go against it and we know this because the 3 sentence is introduced by " The answer is no"

I was quite tough.

Stay strong
_________________
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 64
Location: United States

### Show Tags

18 May 2013, 05:09
I do not understand. Isn't it kinda obvious that the conclusion is " the answer is no - that there will not a reduction in in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists".
Conclusion cannot be "There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. " , since this is just a mere observation by the author and not an opinion or any such statement that makes this a conclusion. None of the answers make sense . Option A would have made sense , if it doesn't mention the second sentence to be the conclusion

-Jyothi
_________________

Jyothi hosamani

Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 19
Location: United States
Schools: NTU '15 (S)
GPA: 3.08
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

22 May 2013, 01:19
gmacforjyoab wrote:
I do not understand. Isn't it kinda obvious that the conclusion is " the answer is no - that there will not a reduction in in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists".
Conclusion cannot be "There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. " , since this is just a mere observation by the author and not an opinion or any such statement that makes this a conclusion. None of the answers make sense . Option A would have made sense , if it doesn't mention the second sentence to be the conclusion

-Jyothi

The conclusion of the the whole argument is no doubt the last sentence . The second sentence is a sub conclusion made from the premises given in the first sentence but the author opposes this sub conclusion(2 nd sentence) in the overall argument

Take away : There can me multiple sub conclusions/inferences but there can be just one overall conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 64
Location: United States

### Show Tags

22 May 2013, 07:26
pjaseem wrote:
gmacforjyoab wrote:
I do not understand. Isn't it kinda obvious that the conclusion is " the answer is no - that there will not a reduction in in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists".
Conclusion cannot be "There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. " , since this is just a mere observation by the author and not an opinion or any such statement that makes this a conclusion. None of the answers make sense . Option A would have made sense , if it doesn't mention the second sentence to be the conclusion

-Jyothi

The conclusion of the the whole argument is no doubt the last sentence . The second sentence is a sub conclusion made from the premises given in the first sentence but the author opposes this sub conclusion(2 nd sentence) in the overall argument

Take away : There can me multiple sub conclusions/inferences but there can be just one overall conclusion.

I Still don't see it . I agree that a passage can have main conclusion and sub conclusion. But this does not sound like a sub conclusion either . - "There has been a debate of weather etc " this kinda implies that "There is a debate that weather something will happen or not happen ". Firstly , answering NO to this does not qualify as opposing it. Secondly , sentences that sound like " There has been a debate" , cannot be conclusions/sub conclusions . They are premises .
I dont know if I am missing something .
_________________

Jyothi hosamani

Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 19
Location: United States
Schools: NTU '15 (S)
GPA: 3.08
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

22 May 2013, 20:39
gmacforjyoab wrote:
pjaseem wrote:
gmacforjyoab wrote:
I do not understand. Isn't it kinda obvious that the conclusion is " the answer is no - that there will not a reduction in in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists".
Conclusion cannot be "There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. " , since this is just a mere observation by the author and not an opinion or any such statement that makes this a conclusion. None of the answers make sense . Option A would have made sense , if it doesn't mention the second sentence to be the conclusion

-Jyothi

The conclusion of the the whole argument is no doubt the last sentence . The second sentence is a sub conclusion made from the premises given in the first sentence but the author opposes this sub conclusion(2 nd sentence) in the overall argument

Take away : There can me multiple sub conclusions/inferences but there can be just one overall conclusion.

I Still don't see it . I agree that a passage can have main conclusion and sub conclusion. But this does not sound like a sub conclusion either . - "There has been a debate of weather etc " this kinda implies that "There is a debate that weather something will happen or not happen ". Firstly , answering NO to this does not qualify as opposing it. Secondly , sentences that sound like " There has been a debate" , cannot be conclusions/sub conclusions . They are premises .
I dont know if I am missing something .

"There has been debate as to whether we can conclude" If you rephrase that it's " can we conclude that A is true"?

You see its not necessarily the authors conclusion.Its someone else's conclusion which the author opposes.The authors conclusion is at the end.

When the author says " There is a debate" it doesnt necessarily mean that he has seen a bunch of people debating about it.He is showing us that some people might take the premise in first line and conclude that A is true.In the last sentence he corrects that conclusion and says B is true

Got it now Please tell me you have got it A kudos would be nive
Current Student
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 865
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M)
GPA: 3.71

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2016, 11:36
1
VeritasPrepKarishma - Can you please explain A and C. I am puzzled that how can second part of A says that the 2nd boldface is a conclusion?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8540
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2017, 02:46
1
1
Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

Responding to a pm:

(A) vs (C)

Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.
The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

What is the conclusion of this argument?

"These purchases will NOT lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This is the position the argument takes.

So the position that the argument opposes is

"These purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This has been given in our second bold statement: There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.

This statement introduces the opposing conclusion.

(A) The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

The first bold statement: Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled.

This is a premise and has been accepted as true. We know it has been accepted as true since the last line ends with - "...negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency"
We have seen above that the second bold statement tells us about a conclusion that the argument opposes.

So (A) is correct.

(C)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

The evidence is "Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled."
That is, "the motorists have begun purchasing fuel efficient cars that give better mileage."

The second bold statement does not undermine this evidence at all. In fact, it builds up on it with - will it lead to overall decreased fuel consumption?

Hence (C) is not correct.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Intern
Joined: 29 May 2016
Posts: 13
Location: India
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V25

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2017, 23:55
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

Responding to a pm:

(A) vs (C)

Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.
The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

What is the conclusion of this argument?

"These purchases will NOT lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This is the position the argument takes.

So the position that the argument opposes is

"These purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This has been given in our second bold statement: There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.

This statement introduces the opposing conclusion.

(A) The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

The first bold statement: Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled.

This is a premise and has been accepted as true. We know it has been accepted as true since the last line ends with - "...negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency"
We have seen above that the second bold statement tells us about a conclusion that the argument opposes.

So (A) is correct.

(C)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

The evidence is "Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled."
That is, "the motorists have begun purchasing fuel efficient cars that give better mileage."

The second bold statement does not undermine this evidence at all. In fact, it builds up on it with - will it lead to overall decreased fuel consumption?

Hence (C) is not correct.

Can u please explain why B is wrong?
Intern
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Posts: 22

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2017, 00:45
1
Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

This is fairly straightforward question, and here is how I approached it. The jargon such as premise, conclusion etc we use to tackle a CR question is great, but reading a really big prompt on the screen is a daunting task in itself and I personally get confused as to which sentence means what. So to keep it simple let's take one sentence at a time, we start with the first sentence, "Motorist have begun... per mile travelled", what does this sentence tell you, apart from the actual semantics of the sentence, the sentence is pure information, no judgements, no opinions offered by the author, sort of a premise, so keep it aside. Now the next sentence, "There has been ... all motorists", this too is actually a fact, essentially an ideal conclusion that would be true in an ideal world, cool, so we have something other than a premise here. Let's move on to the next sentence "The answer is no ... fuel-efficiency", ah, now you can hear the author talk, take a closer look at this sentence, there is some explicit reasoning given by the author and it starts with since, so the part after the 'since' is actually the premise of the author's intended conclusion which is "no, the ideal conclusion we stated above is not true". Now let's get to some eliminations:

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.
Perfect this is what we want!

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.
As described above, the first sentence is certainly not a position taken by the argument, the second part of this option is actually correct

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.
The first sentence is in fact evidence to support a position that the argument apposes, but the second does not undermine the force of that evidence, in fact, the second is actually an inference made on the evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.
Duh, the first is definitely not a conclusion, out!

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.
the author never refutes the evidence presented in the first sentence, out!
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 471
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2017, 23:45
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

Responding to a pm:

(A) vs (C)

Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.
The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

What is the conclusion of this argument?

"These purchases will NOT lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This is the position the argument takes.

So the position that the argument opposes is

"These purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This has been given in our second bold statement: There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.

This statement introduces the opposing conclusion.

(A) The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

The first bold statement: Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled.

This is a premise and has been accepted as true. We know it has been accepted as true since the last line ends with - "...negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency"
We have seen above that the second bold statement tells us about a conclusion that the argument opposes.

So (A) is correct.

(C)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

The evidence is "Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled."
That is, "the motorists have begun purchasing fuel efficient cars that give better mileage."

The second bold statement does not undermine this evidence at all. In fact, it builds up on it with - will it lead to overall decreased fuel consumption?

Hence (C) is not correct.

Hi Karishma,

Thanks for explanation.
I chose A, but still had some doubts.
the second bold face - a conclusion? - is it not a position that argument as a whole seeks to oppose?

Do you think, had choice A read as " The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second is a position that is opposed by the argument as a whole", it would have been better?

Thanks
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8540
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 01:03
hellosanthosh2k2 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Marcab wrote:
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?

1)The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

2)The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence.

3)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

4)The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.

5)The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.

Responding to a pm:

(A) vs (C)

Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.
The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.

What is the conclusion of this argument?

"These purchases will NOT lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This is the position the argument takes.

So the position that the argument opposes is

"These purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists."

This has been given in our second bold statement: There has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists.

This statement introduces the opposing conclusion.

(A) The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole.

The first bold statement: Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled.

This is a premise and has been accepted as true. We know it has been accepted as true since the last line ends with - "...negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency"
We have seen above that the second bold statement tells us about a conclusion that the argument opposes.

So (A) is correct.

(C)The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.

The evidence is "Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled."
That is, "the motorists have begun purchasing fuel efficient cars that give better mileage."

The second bold statement does not undermine this evidence at all. In fact, it builds up on it with - will it lead to overall decreased fuel consumption?

Hence (C) is not correct.

Hi Karishma,

Thanks for explanation.
I chose A, but still had some doubts.
the second bold face - a conclusion? - is it not a position that argument as a whole seeks to oppose?

Do you think, had choice A read as " The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second is a position that is opposed by the argument as a whole", it would have been better?

Thanks

Note that conclusion/position/opinion all are the same as far as we are concerned. The position the author takes is the same as the opinion of the author which is the same as the conclusion of his argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3386

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2018, 09:47
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.
_________________
Re: Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more &nbs [#permalink] 08 Nov 2018, 09:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by