Recently, since rumors have been confirmed that the most prominent

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.

Thanks for the explanations OA is C source is veritas

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!

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

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.
[/color]
Now look at the first boldface. It is supporting the IC but not the main conclusion.

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

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

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!

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.[/quote]

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

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[ing] 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.

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!

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.

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.