GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 27 Apr 2018, 00:00

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 02 Jul 2017
Posts: 14
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2017, 06:38
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, 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 gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) 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.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(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.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hi
Sorry to raise this question again.
I agree with you about the main conclusion, which is that the depositors' refief is overoptimistic.
But i don't think the first boldface is support this conclusion. I think bank's executives buying shares is a fact, making depositors refieve.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the conclusion in the choices should be the main conclusion.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 293
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 06:05
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, 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 gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) 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.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(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.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hi VeritasPrepKarishma

To me, choice D does not make any sense because of the second Bold face; But choice E does. However, I also had an intuition that choice A can be correct, but I prefer choice E

I did not grasp the below explanation of the first boldface you provided, probably, because of lack of understanding of how circumstances is used in Boldface

First Boldface Explanation:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

My reasoning(I know it is incorrect)

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain--
yes it does-- it gives a false implication to bank's depositor to be relieved
further author explains why top executive does what is mentioned in first boldface part.

Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 506
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2017, 00:19

first of all let us analyse the boldfaces..and start eliminating answer choices
author doesnt agree with the reasoning provided, therefore he wrote those worrisome rumors must be false.
and so wrt author those rumors are true and he is against the above statement.
therefore we can say the second boldface is contradicting what 1st bold face is supporting or we can say it questions the support.
now 2nd bold face is not the conclusion therefore answer choices B and C are gone.
We're left with A D and E
now from 1st and 2nd boldface it is also clear that 2nd boldface is written contradictory to 1st bold face, therefore options E and D which shows both Boldface supporting are wrong
Ans is A
_________________

Give Kudos for correct answer and/or if you like the solution.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8025
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2017, 00:51
AR15J wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, 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 gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) 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.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(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.

Responding to a pm:

Conclusion of the argument: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

First statement: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, - evidence supporting 'depositors have been greatly relieved'

Second statement: corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors - evidence supporting 'reasoning is overoptimistic'. This sentence questions the evidence of the first sentence. So, executives are buying shares in their own bank - well, they have been known to do that. It is a calculated step.

So the first bold sentence gives support to the conclusion that investors are relieved. But the second bold sentence questions this support and hence gives support to 'they probably shouldn't be relieved'.

As for (D), I don't think it makes much sense to me at all.

Let's look at it in detail:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. - the explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument. The second statement is a premise, not a conclusion endorsed by the argument.

Hi VeritasPrepKarishma

To me, choice D does not make any sense because of the second Bold face; But choice E does. However, I also had an intuition that choice A can be correct, but I prefer choice E

I did not grasp the below explanation of the first boldface you provided, probably, because of lack of understanding of how circumstances is used in Boldface

First Boldface Explanation:

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain - the entire argument is explaining a circumstance. The first bold statement itself is not doing it. It only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument questions.

My reasoning(I know it is incorrect)

The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain--
yes it does-- it gives a false implication to bank's depositor to be relieved
further author explains why top executive does what is mentioned in first boldface part.

A circumstance/position that an argument seeks to explain will be something like the conclusion of the argument. The purpose of the argument will be to explain it. If it is an explain the paradox question, it will be the paradox.
First bold statement is a premise. A fact used in the argument.
What is the main purpose of the argument? To say that such reasoning may be overoptimistic. Hence (D) and (E) both are incorrect.

(A) is correct as explained above.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 34
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2018, 02:12
I chose D and here's why:

The first part of D says " The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain". The circumstance is " several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". We can surely see that from "since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health", the argument is trying to explain why "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". The only counter to my explanation that I see is the option using the phrase "argument as a whole". But is this phrase strong enough to reject this choice?

I did not choose A and here's why:

The first part of A says "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion". The conclusion (an intermediate conclusion) that the option is referring to is definitely "the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced-impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved." So, can the bold face part be taken as an "evidence" that is really supporting or strenthening the intermediate conclusion? Please explain how is this supporting the fact stated that the depositors are relieved. As per me an evidence for supporting a conclusion should be a fact that makes the conclusion more believeable. Here, "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank" is merely a circumstance which has had an effect, that is, the depositors are now greatly relieved. The bold face is merely a premise to the intermediate conclusion. This fact does not in any way "strengthen" the intermediate conclusion. To provide an evidence in order to strengthen, we need to have a fact that makes "the bank's depositors have been greatly relieved." more believable. Something like, the bank's depositors have increased their bank deposits, etc.

Please explain how is my thought process wrong. Also, please tell me if the premise of a conclusion should always be taken as an evidence strengthening the conclusion.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8025
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2018, 05:58
aviejay wrote:
I chose D and here's why:

The first part of D says " The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain". The circumstance is " several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". We can surely see that from "since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health", the argument is trying to explain why "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". The only counter to my explanation that I see is the option using the phrase "argument as a whole". But is this phrase strong enough to reject this choice?

This is not correct. What is the conclusion of the argument? What does the author want to say? Note that the author gives his opinion here "Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic..." Rest all are facts or what others feel. The argument does not seek to explain that executives have been buying shares in their own banks. It seeks to explain why "such reasoning may be overoptimistic".
The first bold statement only explains why people are relieved - the conclusion which the argument actually QUESTIONS.

aviejay wrote:
I did not choose A and here's why:

The first part of A says "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion". The conclusion (an intermediate conclusion) that the option is referring to is definitely "the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced-impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved." So, can the bold face part be taken as an "evidence" that is really supporting or strenthening the intermediate conclusion? Please explain how is this supporting the fact stated that the depositors are relieved. As per me an evidence for supporting a conclusion should be a fact that makes the conclusion more believeable. Here, "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank" is merely a circumstance which has had an effect, that is, the depositors are now greatly relieved. The bold face is merely a premise to the intermediate conclusion. This fact does not in any way "strengthen" the intermediate conclusion. To provide an evidence in order to strengthen, we need to have a fact that makes "the bank's depositors have been greatly relieved." more believable. Something like, the bank's depositors have increased their bank deposits, etc.

Please explain how is my thought process wrong. Also, please tell me if the premise of a conclusion should always be taken as an evidence strengthening the conclusion.

Premises leading to a conclusion are supporting the conclusion - they are helping in establishing the conclusion. Technically speaking, it may not be the same as making the conclusion more believable. The first bold sentence is certainly helping in establishing (hence supporting) the intermediate conclusion.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives   [#permalink] 12 Mar 2018, 05:58

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 66 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by