Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent

Question

Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent multi-property owners in the condominium complex have been using home equity credit to make renovations, other owners, who feared that the complex's property values were rapidly decreasing, have been greatly relieved. They posit that, since the largest stakeholders in the complex evidently believe in the soundness of their properties, the worry that values are declining must be false. This may not be sound reasoning, however, because the largest stakeholders may simply be protecting their investments by creating the image that the property values will stay high so that other owners do not sell their properties and further perpetuate the decrease.

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

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.

(B) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.

(C) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

dentobizz · Accepted Answer

Bumping for review and further discussion
New GmatClub project Click here

Theory on Boldfaced Questions
GMAT HACKS
https://www.gmathacks.com/critical-reaso ... oning.html

MANGOOSH
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... questions/

MASTER GMAT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb6tkQHa0Wo

Veritas prep
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/03 ... -the-gmat/

Thrusdays with ron

Manhattan gmat
https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... -question/

Unlimited gmat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jct_pPgl8M

e-gmat
many-gmat-test-takers-consider-bold-face-bf-questions-to-145093.html

Kaplan
bold-face-questions-in-cr-a-video-by-kaplan-162893.html

Knewton
https://www.knewton.com/blog/gmat/2010/0 ... ion-types/

Marcab · Answer

I feel that the asnwer is C.
Though did it by POE, it took more than 2 mins.
The main conclusion is: THIS MAY NOT BE SOUND REASONING.
A The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion;  the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument .  SECOND BOLDFACE IS NOT A CONCLUSION 
B  The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion   DISASTER. NONE OF THE PART IS CORRECT. THE FIRST DOESNT PROVIDES ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CONCLUSION AND SECOND BOLDFACE DOESNT STATES THE CONCLUSION.  
C The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.   CORRECT  
D  The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain ; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.  THE FIRST DOES'NT DESCRIBES ANY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE WHOLE ARGUMENT SEEKS TO EXPLAIN. INCORRECT  
E  The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain ; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.  THE FIRST DOES'NT DESCRIBES ANY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE WHOLE ARGUMENT SEEKS TO EXPLAIN. INCORRECT

IMHO C.
whats the OA and the source Nelz?

Vips0000 · Answer

Again a question without OA..

In my opinion ans should be C. "the condominium complex have been using home equity credit to make renovations" is a fact (it is mentioned that it has been confirmed) and based on this fact a perception is formed (conclusion). However second statement provides a reason to question the formation of this perception. Ans C it is.

nelz007 · Answer

Thanks for the explanations OA is C source is veritas

nelz007 · Answer

could you guys try this question @marcab and @vips0000 in-the-past-50-years-the-population-of-honeybees-in-the-142416.html will provide OA after explanations. Thanks!

Archit143 · Answer

Pls explain how can be first bold face is supporting conclusion.

Marcab · Answer

Hey archit...how are u doing?

Look at the intermediate conclusion.

Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent multi-property owners in the condominium complex have been using home equity credit to make renovations, other owners, who feared that the complex's property values were rapidly decreasing, have been greatly relieved.   They posit that , since the largest stakeholders in the complex evidently believe in the soundness of their properties,  the worry that values are declining must be false . This may not be sound reasoning, however, because the largest stakeholders may simply be protecting their investments by creating the image that the property values will stay high so that other owners do not sell their properties and further perpetuate the decrease.
 
Now look at the first boldface. It is supporting the IC but not the main conclusion.

sahil7389 · Answer

Veritas  PREP or  egmat  or any Expert.
Can you please explain this question. I am not able to understand it.

dayasantoshi · Answer

Hi sahil7389 Please find below my reasoning. Let me know if it helps. Splitting the argument. 1. Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent multi-property owners in the condominium complex have been using home equity credit to make renovations ,- Fact 2. other owners, who feared that the complex's property values were rapidly decreasing, have been greatly relieved. - Premise 3. They posit that, since the largest stakeholders in the complex evidently believe in the soundness of their properties, the worry that values are declining must be false. Conclusion 4. This may not be sound reasoning, however, because the largest stakeholders may simply be protecting their investments by creating the image that the property values will stay high so that other owners do not sell their properties and further perpetuate the decrease . - Counter Premise The (1) BF and (2) BF are opposite premises. A The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument. The second is not the conclusion. It is a counter premise "This may not be sound reasoning because...." Hence incorrect. (note the words - may not be) B The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion. The two BFs are supporting opposite conclusions. Hence incorrect. C The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support. Yes, Both are premises, the first one supporting the conclusion and the second one, doing the opposite, makes you question the conclusion. - Correct D The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. Both are supporting opposite conclusions and are not on the same side of the argument. Also, the second BF is not an explanation, it gives you a reason to question the conclusion. Hence incorrect. E The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. Both are supporting opposite conclusions and are not on the same side of the argument. The second provides a counter -evidence to the conclusion. Hence incorrect. Let me know if this helped you or confused you more

mvictor · Answer

second is definitely not a conclusion
A and B are right away eliminated.
First one describes a fact that has lead people to consider smth. The second one, is an example why that consideration might be false.
C is the best!

bluetrain · Answer

In this question apparently C is the best option.

But for studying, What is exactly wrong in E ?

E - The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

1. circumstance 
2. argument as a whole seeks to explain
3. provides evidence of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish

From where problems begin?
Of course, I`ve already read all the post.

broall

anothermillenial · Answer

Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent multi-property owners in  the condominium complex have been using home equity credit to make renovations,  other owners, who feared that the complex's property values were rapidly decreasing, have been greatly relieved. They posit that, since the largest stakeholders in the complex evidently believe in the soundness of their properties, the worry that values are declining must be false. This may not be sound reasoning, however, because the largest stakeholders may simply be protecting their investments by  creating the image that the property values will stay high so that other owners do not sell their properties and further perpetuate the decrease .
 
  Notes  
(P) Rumors confirm owners renov. —> relieve low value fears 
(CP) other owners: value declining is a false worry
(C) not sound reasoning
(P) protecting investments
(AP) create image of high value —> owners don’t sell

Analysis and Pre-phrasing  
This stimulus begins by telling us that some rumours have been confirmed. We know, therefore, that the condominium complex renovations are a fact. The author then shares that this confirmed rumour was a great relief to other owners who believe that making renovations means that “the largest stakeholders believe in the soundness of their properties” and therefore, these other owners should not worry about values declining. “They posit that” preamble introduces the other owner’s conclusion (the “worry that values are declining must be false”).

From the following sentence (“This may not be sound reasoning, however…”), which is the author’s claim and conclusion, we can tell that the author clearly disagrees with the other owners. The author supports his position by sharing that these large stakeholders are merely “protecting their investments”. He then adds some additional premises about creating an image of high value.

From our notes, we can confirm that:
- The first bold-face is a neutral premise.
- The second bold-face is a premise supporting the author’s conclusion.
- In relation to each other, we are looking for something that is neither opposite nor same.
  
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a  contrary conclusion  that is the main conclusion of the argument. 
OK, I can see the first being “evidence”… does it support “a conclusion”? Yes. Is the second a contrary conclusion? Not at all, the second is definitely not a conclusion…or main conclusion at all.

(B) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that  conclusion . 
The first DOES provide evidence…but not in support of the “main conclusion.” The main conclusion is that “this may not be sound reasoning.”

(C) The first describes  evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion ; the second gives a  reason for questioning that support . 
The first half is pretty true. The second does give reason to question that evidence that the other owners use to support their idea that large stakeholders renovating is equivalent to “believ  in the soundness of their properties”.
 
(D) The first describes the circumstance that  the argument as a whole seeks to explain ; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. 
The first could be a circumstance…since circumstances are situations…but is it a circumstance that the argument seeks to explain? No. Firstly, the circumstance doesn't need to be explained since the "rumour confirmed it" Also, the argument only seeks to explain (or disprove) the owners’ erroneous belief that they should not be worried since renovations can be interpreted as property values not declining.

(E) The first describes  the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain;  the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. 
Same as (D). Also, the second is not evidence.

shivani99 · Answer

The passage says that 'They(other owners) posit that, since the largest stakeholders in the complex evidently believe in the soundness of their properties, the worry that values are declining must be false'. The correct answer choice C says that this is a conclusion. How can this be a conclusion?
Clearly, this is not concluded by the author but by the other owners. Isn't a conclusion something that is inferred by the author?

Thanks!

dcummins · Answer

Here's the official explanation on this one: 
This Boldface question heavily rewards those who can highlight the difference between premise and conclusion. If you look carefully next to the words "since" and "because" - words that signal a premise upon which a conclusion may be built - you'll see that the argument contains two conclusions. The first portion in boldface is used as evidence for the conclusion "the worry that home values are declining must be false," a conclusion that comes adjacent to "since the largest stakeholders evidently believe..."

The second conclusion is "This may not be sound reasoning," which comes next to the bolded "because the largest stakeholders may simply be protecting their investments." This is important for two reasons:

1) There is a split between whether the second portion is evidence or a conclusion (and the fact that it is prefaced by "because" means that it is being used as evidence)

and

2) There is a split between whether the first portion is evidence for a conclusion or a circumstance that the argument seeks to explain. If you note that the conclusion of the argument is to criticize the reasoning ("this may not be sound reasoning"), which means that it's countering the earlier conclusion that "the worry must be false," then the correct answer must describe the first portion as evidence. While the argument does explain the circumstance from the first sentence, its conclusion - the stated main point of the argument - is to counter the reasoning.

Because the first bolded portion is evidence that leads to the initial conclusion and the second portion is evidence for the main conclusion, the correct answer must be C.

A_Nishith · Answer

Let's break this down and analyze each option step by step to determine which one accurately describes the roles of the two boldfaced portions.

Summary of the Argument:
 The first bolded portion:  The owners believe that since prominent multi-property owners are making renovations using home equity credit, they must believe that the property values are sound and not declining.

The second bolded portion:  The author suggests this reasoning may be flawed because the largest stakeholders may simply be creating the appearance of stable property values to prevent other owners from selling and thus driving prices lower.

Analysis of Each Option:
(A) "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument."
First part: The first bolded portion is indeed evidence used by the other owners to support their belief that property values are stable.
Second part: However, the second bolded portion does not present the main conclusion of the argument. It offers an alternative explanation, not the final conclusion. Hence, this option is incorrect.

(B) "The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion."
First part: While the first bolded portion does present evidence for the owners' belief, it is not the main conclusion of the argument.
Second part: The second bolded portion is not the main conclusion; it's an alternative explanation. Therefore, this option is also incorrect.

(C) "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support."
First part: This accurately describes the first bolded portion. The owners use this evidence (the prominent stakeholders' renovations) to support their belief that property values are stable.
Second part: The second bolded portion indeed questions this reasoning by offering a counterpoint: the prominent stakeholders might simply be creating an illusion of stable values to protect their own investments. Thus, this option is correct.

(D) "The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish."
First part: The first bolded portion describes a circumstance (the owners' belief) but not one that the entire argument seeks to explain. Instead, it is the reasoning used by the owners, not the overall situation the argument is focused on.
Second part: The second bolded portion does not establish the main explanation of the argument. Hence, this option is incorrect.

(E) "The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish."
First part: Again, the first bolded portion does not describe the main circumstance the argument seeks to explain. It merely reflects the owners' beliefs.
Second part: The second bolded portion does not provide evidence for the main conclusion but instead questions the reasoning behind the belief. Hence, this option is incorrect.

Correct Answer: 
(C) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent

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

Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent

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