Last visit was: 29 Apr 2026, 10:04 It is currently 29 Apr 2026, 10:04
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
705-805 (Hard)|   Bold Face CR|                                       
User avatar
merajul
User avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2014
Last visit: 10 Feb 2024
Posts: 128
Own Kudos:
40
Given Kudos: 229
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Date: 07-23-2015
GMAT 1: 580 Q41 V28
GPA: 3.8
WE:Project Management (Energy)
GMAT 1: 580 Q41 V28
Posts: 128
Kudos: 40
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 22 May 2017, 10:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I was confused between A & D.Unfortunately chose D. while A correctly refers " the second gives a reason for questioning....". I chose D primarily because 1st bold face describes a circumstances, which author justifies the conclusion in 2nd Bold face line. Can anybody clear the logic behind the correct answer choice
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 29 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,830
 [4]
Given Kudos: 2,133
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,830
 [4]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 25 May 2017, 19:11
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
merajul
I was confused between A & D.Unfortunately chose D. while A correctly refers " the second gives a reason for questioning....". I chose D primarily because 1st bold face describes a circumstances, which author justifies the conclusion in 2nd Bold face line. Can anybody clear the logic behind the correct answer choice
Show more
Quote:
(A) 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.
Show more
The passage states that "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank", but the main goal of the argument is not to explain this phenomenon. The main goal of the argument is to conclude that the reasoning of the bank's depositors might well be overoptimistic. Note that the author does not definitively conclude that, in this case, the executives bought shares in their own bank to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

Several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank. As a result of this evidence, the bank's depositors believe that top executives have faith in the bank's financial soundness and that rumors that the bank is facing impending financial collapse must be false. In other words, depositors believe that executives' buying of shares in their own bank is a sign of the bank's financial soundness. However, the author presents an alternative explanation: executives' buying shares in their own bank might be a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

The first boldfaced portion is the evidence used by depositors to arrive at their conclusion, and the second boldfaced portion is a possibility presented to show that the explanation assumed by the depositors may not be correct. So choice (A) is correct.
User avatar
bhavikagoyal2009
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Last visit: 13 Nov 2018
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 19
Schools: Yale '20 (I)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Yale '20 (I)
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Posts: 14
Kudos: 5
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 20 Jun 2017, 02:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma
betterscore
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.
Show more

Hello. Thankyou for the explanation. :)

Can you help me understand why "E" is wrong. The BF1 describes the situation that bank executives have been buying shares. The whole argument is revolved around this situation, evaluating whether this is right or wrong. BF2- It states that this statement is the premise supporting the conclusion that "reasoning might be overoptimistic".

Please help me understand where my thinking is wrong.
User avatar
Lucy Phuong
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Last visit: 12 Aug 2021
Posts: 111
Own Kudos:
351
 [1]
Given Kudos: 106
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 111
Kudos: 351
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 20 Jun 2017, 23:43
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bhavikagoyal2009


Please help me understand where my thinking is wrong.
Show more

Actually I had fallen into that trap, too. But after reading carefully, I realized that the purpose of the argument is not to explain why executive banks have been buying shares; Instead, it focuses on whether we should be worried about financial issue of the bank.

Let's see, why do the bank depositors cite their observation about buying action of bank executives? Bank depositors just cite that fact, assume that the reason for the action is that "top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness", then take it as supporter for the conclusion that [yea, the bank is still fine, we shouldn't be worried.]

Then you see the author doesn't agree with the reason (for executives' buying behavior) claimed by bank depositors, right? But is discussing about the cause the main point here? No! The author undermines the depositors' explanation simply in order to express the conclusion: [Hey you are overoptimistic, we still need to care about bank's financial health.] Just image the author may say that: [Your assumption about why executives buy shares is wrong! executives' buying action is actually not a positive sign at all, but rather a negative sign. The motivation behind this action should be that executives are just trying to avoid rumor regarding company health. Therefore, yes there is a real issue to worry about!]
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,445
 [2]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,445
 [2]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 21 Jun 2017, 02:39
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bhavikagoyal2009
VeritasPrepKarishma
betterscore
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.

Hello. Thankyou for the explanation. :)

Can you help me understand why "E" is wrong. The BF1 describes the situation that bank executives have been buying shares. The whole argument is revolved around this situation, evaluating whether this is right or wrong. BF2- It states that this statement is the premise supporting the conclusion that "reasoning might be overoptimistic".

Please help me understand where my thinking is wrong.
Show more

(E) is not correct.
The aim of the argument is not to explain this - "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". The argument doesn't revolve around evaluating this. The objective of the argument is to establish that the depositors of the bank should not be relieved.
User avatar
AR15J
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Last visit: 15 May 2024
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
163
Given Kudos: 145
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 210
Kudos: 163
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 12 Aug 2017, 06:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma
betterscore
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.
Show more


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.

Please help
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,445
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,445
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 07 Sep 2017, 00:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AR15J
VeritasPrepKarishma
betterscore
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.

Please help
Show more

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.
User avatar
aviejay
User avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2019
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 32
Kudos: 14
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 10 Mar 2018, 02:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,445
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,445
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 12 Mar 2018, 05:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aviejay
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?
Show more


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

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.
Show more

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.
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,223
Own Kudos:
1,359
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,223
Kudos: 1,359
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 15 Apr 2018, 03:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

I was able to correctly identify main conclusion of argument as :
Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

The think that tricked me is to catch purpose of however
that followed main conclusion.

Also, in typical bold face question, do we not link bold face to
main conclusion than linking it to a conclusion (say conclusion of
depositors in this eg as in (A)
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,445
 [2]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,445
 [2]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 17 Apr 2018, 01:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani
GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

I was able to correctly identify main conclusion of argument as :
Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic

The think that tricked me is to catch purpose of however
that followed main conclusion.

Also, in typical bold face question, do we not link bold face to
main conclusion than linking it to a conclusion (say conclusion of
depositors in this eg as in (A)
Show more

Look at the entire sentence:
"Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company..."

"however" is the connector for "such reasoning might well be overoptimistic" with the part of the argument before it.
You could just as well place it before like this: "However, such reasoning might well be overoptimistic,"
"However" shows contrast with the argument before it.

The connector "since" and what follows gives the reason for why such reasoning may be overoptimistic.

The role played by the sentence in bold depends on the argument. If the argument has a main conclusion and a sub conclusion, a sentence in bold could support either, be against either or be either.
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 356
Own Kudos:
96
 [1]
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 356
Kudos: 96
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 25 Oct 2019, 00:10
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear AjiteshArun,

I would like to seek your view on how to avoid traps in choice D. confidently.

(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 second part does in a way explain the circumstance depicted in the first. Also, the explanation can contain some uncertainty. This is consistent with "might" in the main conclusion in the passage.

When I see choice D., I am really not sure how to reject choice D. on solid grounds.

Please help :please :please :please
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 27 Apr 2026
Posts: 6,079
Own Kudos:
5,140
 [1]
Given Kudos: 744
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 6,079
Kudos: 5,140
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 25 Oct 2019, 03:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Dear AjiteshArun,

I would like to seek your view on how to avoid traps in choice D. confidently.

(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 second part does in a way explain the circumstance depicted in the first. Also, the explanation can contain some uncertainty. This is consistent with "might" in the main conclusion in the passage.

When I see choice D., I am really not sure how to reject choice D. on solid grounds.

Please help :please :please :please
Show more
Hi varotkorn,

The second boldfaced portion is not really the explanation for the first boldfaced portion. Look at it this way:
(a) Present: several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank
(b) Past: 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

We can't say that the entire boldfaced portion in (b) explains the boldfaced portion in (a). That is, we can't say (b), therefore (a).

Also, as you pointed out, the possible explanation that is contained in the second boldfaced portion is not some one "true" explanation that the argument tries to establish. Instead, the argument takes the position that the reasoning of the depositors might be overoptimistic.
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,846
Own Kudos:
9,188
 [1]
Given Kudos: 226
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,846
Kudos: 9,188
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 23 Apr 2021, 00:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Let’s look at the stimulus given-

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.

Opinion/ conclusion of the author-

Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic,

Reason-
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 author’s conclusion that -“such reasoning might well be overoptimistic” talks about the reasoning of the bank depositors.

The second BF is not the main conclusion or counter conclusion of the author.
Eliminate B and C.

The first BF is used by the bank’s depositors to support their stand. The author goes on to conclude that their reasoning might well be overoptimistic and the second BF gives the reasoning for that.

The first BF is not in support of the main conclusion of the argument (author’s conclusion). Nor does it describe the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain. Eliminate C,D, and E.

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

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME
avatar
him0559
avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2021
Last visit: 20 Jun 2023
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Schools: Fuqua '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23
Schools: Fuqua '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23
Posts: 2
Kudos: 1
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 30 Jan 2022, 23:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
What is the meaning of the word "circumstance" given in options D and E?
Just as words such as evidence, premise has their own meanings, what is the relevance of the word circumstance?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 29 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,830
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,133
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,830
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 07 Feb 2022, 19:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
him0559
What is the meaning of the word "circumstance" given in options D and E?
Just as words such as evidence, premise has their own meanings, what is the relevance of the word circumstance?
Show more
The words such as "evidence" or "conclusion" are useful because they capture the function of a specific line in an argument. In other words, they help us determine why the author included a particular piece of the passage, and how that piece fits into the author's argument as a whole.

The word "circumstance" doesn't really capture that same information, so there's no need to highlight this word as something that will be particularly useful to help you work through other CR questions. Of course, it's generally a good idea to expand your vocabulary as you study for the GMAT and there's no harm in looking up unfamiliar words as you go -- but we wouldn't necessarily recommend that you include the word "circumstance" as a super important piece of GMAT CR.

Both (D) and (E) state that the first bold face "describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain."

Here, "circumstance" just means "situation" or "state of affairs." The first bold face does indeed describe a situation: "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank."

However, the author's goal is not to explain why the execs are buying shares. The author does not pretend to know the motives behind the execs actions. All the author wants to show is that the depositors' reasoning might be wrong. So the first half of (D) and (E) do not accurately describe the purpose of the argument as a whole. Eliminate (D) and (E).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Saupayan
User avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Last visit: 23 May 2025
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
139
Given Kudos: 94
Status:Full-time employee
Affiliations: Apple Inc
Location: United States
Saupayan: Mazumdar
Concentration: Economics, Leadership
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
GPA: 3.89
WE:Engineering (Computer Hardware)
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
Posts: 107
Kudos: 139
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 01 Sep 2023, 10:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja KarishmaB
I read the explanations and they all make sense to me. However, I had initially rejected the OA (option A) for a wording-related reason, and I would love to have one of you explain why I am wrong.

Quote:
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
Show more

My analysis went as follows.
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion: This part is correct. The conclusion isn't the main conclusion, but it is a conclusion nonetheless. No problems here.
the second gives a reason for questioning that support : The second gives a reason for questioning - all good so far - that support ummm... is it really questioning the support? To me, the phrase "question that support" can be interpreted in 2 ways:
(i) question whether it is a support (as opposed to an opposition or a neutral comment), i.e. whether bank executives buying back shares actually supports the claim that financial health of bank is ok (or does it hurt that claim or does it not affect the claim one way or another)
(ii) question whether the support is true (i.e. whether bank executives are actually buying back shares) - you can't question the premise, so this is OUT

I would have been more comfortable had the second part read: the second gives reason to question the conclusion drawn based on the supporting claim

I am probably making the mistake of wearing my SC hat while solving a CR question. But I would still to know that is the actual mistake I am committing (as opposed to something bigger which I'm overlooking)
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 27 Apr 2026
Posts: 6,079
Own Kudos:
5,140
Given Kudos: 744
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 6,079
Kudos: 5,140
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 01 Sep 2023, 18:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Saupayan
To me, the phrase "question that support" can be interpreted in 2 ways:
(i) question whether it is a support (as opposed to an opposition or a neutral comment), i.e. whether bank executives buying back shares actually supports the claim that financial health of bank is ok (or does it hurt that claim or does it not affect the claim one way or another)
(ii) question whether the support is true (i.e. whether bank executives are actually buying back shares) - you can't question the premise, so this is OUT
Show more
Hi Saupayan,

Until you receive a more complete response:
"To question {X}" just means "to express doubts about {X}". We use it (a) when we want to say that something isn't true or (b) when we want to question the value of something.

For example, "She questioned his opinion" just means that she expressed doubts about (weakened) {his opinion}. It doesn't mean "She questioned whether he had an opinion".
User avatar
Saupayan
User avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Last visit: 23 May 2025
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
139
Given Kudos: 94
Status:Full-time employee
Affiliations: Apple Inc
Location: United States
Saupayan: Mazumdar
Concentration: Economics, Leadership
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
GPA: 3.89
WE:Engineering (Computer Hardware)
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
Posts: 107
Kudos: 139
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 01 Sep 2023, 20:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
Saupayan
To me, the phrase "question that support" can be interpreted in 2 ways:
(i) question whether it is a support (as opposed to an opposition or a neutral comment), i.e. whether bank executives buying back shares actually supports the claim that financial health of bank is ok (or does it hurt that claim or does it not affect the claim one way or another)
(ii) question whether the support is true (i.e. whether bank executives are actually buying back shares) - you can't question the premise, so this is OUT
Hi Saupayan,

Until you receive a more complete response:
"To question {X}" just means "to express doubts about {X}". We use it (a) when we want to say that something isn't true or (b) when we want to question the value of something.

For example, "She questioned his opinion" just means that she expressed doubts about (weakened) {his opinion}. It doesn't mean "She questioned whether he had an opinion".
Show more

Hey Buddy,
First of all, let me say I am a fan and you are a role model (as far as GMAT goes). So, it's great to hear from you.
Now, let me get to my question without spamming too much:
She questioned his opinion = she questioned where his opinion was correct
I agree it doesn't mean whether he had an opinion. But it doesn't mean "whether his opinion was well-founded" either, does it? In other words, irrespective of how he formed his opinions, she thinks they are wrong.
Now coming to the question at hand, the actual flaw (in boldface 1) that is being highlighted by the 2nd boldface is "Hey you can't just jump to B because you have A". It isn't saying we have doubts about the support. We know it is a support. The issue here is that the support isn't well-founded. It is based on an assumption, which isn't necessarily true.
I am not sure if I am able to express the nuanced difference in the usage of the word "questioned" (and it might just be that the difference exists in my head). I just want to know if that's the case.

But I honestly appreciate you taking time out to respond to me. Thank you again!
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,447
Own Kudos:
79,445
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,447
Kudos: 79,445
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 02 Sep 2023, 07:11
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Saupayan
GMATNinja KarishmaB
I read the explanations and they all make sense to me. However, I had initially rejected the OA (option A) for a wording-related reason, and I would love to have one of you explain why I am wrong.

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

My analysis went as follows.
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion: This part is correct. The conclusion isn't the main conclusion, but it is a conclusion nonetheless. No problems here.
the second gives a reason for questioning that support : The second gives a reason for questioning - all good so far - that support ummm... is it really questioning the support? To me, the phrase "question that support" can be interpreted in 2 ways:
(i) question whether it is a support (as opposed to an opposition or a neutral comment), i.e. whether bank executives buying back shares actually supports the claim that financial health of bank is ok (or does it hurt that claim or does it not affect the claim one way or another)
(ii) question whether the support is true (i.e. whether bank executives are actually buying back shares) - you can't question the premise, so this is OUT

I would have been more comfortable had the second part read: the second gives reason to question the conclusion drawn based on the supporting claim

I am probably making the mistake of wearing my SC hat while solving a CR question. But I would still to know that is the actual mistake I am committing (as opposed to something bigger which I'm overlooking)
Show more

I agree with the nuanced difference you have pointed out but option (A) is the best of the given options and this tells us that we need to look at it as per context. It 'questions that support' here doesn't mean that it questions the veracity of the statement. It means that it questions whether it does support the conclusion.
Once you do enough official question, you will get used to these nuances.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
509 posts
bhanu29
363 posts