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

It is currently 15 Dec 2018, 08:08

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • $450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

     December 15, 2018

     December 15, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Get the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth $100 with the 3 Month Pack ($299)
  • FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

     December 16, 2018

     December 16, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2014, 04:09
1
DebWenger wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
DebWenger wrote:
Although I did mark A,I'm finding it difficult to strike out D.
I'm pretty sure during the actual thing would've marked as D and wondered where I had gone wrong with my verbal!
BF1 does seem like a circumstance that the argument seeks to explain later.And BF2 is definitely an explanation for it.Why did the bankers buy shares of a bank that may fail.BF2 clearly explains that.
I might be totally going wrong here though.
Experts please help me out.



Ask yourself: What does the argument seek to establish?
The author's primary concern here is "don't be too optimistic about the bank"
He starts by explaining what has made people optimistic and why it may not be advisable to rely on that development and be optimistic.

Now, does "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank," describe what the argument seeks to establish? Mind you, the option has to fit exactly... "it's something like this" does not work. Every sentence in the argument is obviously related to what the author seeks to establish but the sentence must be exactly what the author actually seeks to establish (or conclusion). First bold face is not what the author seeks to establish and hence (D) is not correct.


Thanks for the explanation
Also,for the 1st BF the option "The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain","as a whole" is what should have put me of in the first place.
As a whole the argument wants to point out to the depositors ,that don't be too optimistic.Can this be the main point/conclusion of the entire argument?Would love to know your thoughts on this.
Also,is the main point of an argument in most cases the conclusion as well?


The conclusion is the main point of the argument. It is the author's opinion; what the author wants to put forward to the reader.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 503
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2015, 10:40
Hi Experts, I picked E. I could find both conclusions etc. But my biggest problem is the alternative wording for conclusion, I just don't understand how many alternative words are there for conclusions and how to identify them:

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion PREMISE


(D) the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2015, 21:53
BrainLab wrote:
Hi Experts, I picked E. I could find both conclusions etc. But my biggest problem is the alternative wording for conclusion, I just don't understand how many alternative words are there for conclusions and how to identify them:

(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion PREMISE


(D) the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?

The explanation that the argument would establish would be the conclusion endorsed by the argument so yes, it says that the second statement is a conclusion. Actually, in this question, the second statement is a premise.

(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain --> does it mean a CONCLUSION ?


The entire argument is explaining a circumstance. This would make more sense in say, a paradox situation where one statement gives the paradox and the rest of the argument explains it. So this would not be your usual conclusion.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7107
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2016, 06:36
5
anujagarwal11 wrote:
Can someone please explain the method used to answer such type of questions?

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.


Hi,

in the Qs, which involves BOLDFACED sentences.....
1) The first step is to find the CONCLUSION.
WHY?... Because all statements are related to the CONCLUSION in some way, it could be either supporting or against or a premise..
2) The next will be to CORRELATE it to the CONCLUSION
3) There will be no use trying to dissect it completely in what is evidence, fact, premise 1, premise 2, inferences etc and waste time.
4) After finding conclusion, look what are the choices referring these bold faces as..
5) May be able to eliminate many choices on its basis...


lets see this Q..
1) MAIN CONCLUSION :- Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however....
2) None of the bold faces are conclusion. FIRST, at the first look, is an evidence and SECOND is a premise about the evidence
3) lets see the choices now...
A) Any Choice calling any of the bold face as a conclusion needs to be eliminated immediately...
ELIMINATE B and C..
B) now the FIRST BF in no way is supporting the main conclusion, so choices seeking to prove this can again be eliminated..
ELIMINATE D and E.. it is no way describing the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain..
c) lets see WHY A should be correct?
here we are talking of A CONCLUSION and not THE CONCLUSION, so its not talking of main conclusion.
the conclusion it is trying to support is They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. the SECOND BF is questioning that SUPPORT..
FITS in properly

_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 571
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 17 Jul 2016, 22:30
Premise 1) Executive are buying their own bank's share. ---> FIRST BOLDFACE
Premise 2) Rumors of those bank failing must be false, because no executive will DELIBERATELY buy shares of a failing institute.
Conclusion) Sometimes it is a calculated attempt by executive to KNOWINGLY buy shares of their failing institute to pretend to the people that everything is great and there is no need to worry.--> SECOND BOLDFACE

Answer is A

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

Conclusion says that executives will buy share (even though they have a hidden sinister motive). First boldface is saying that executives are buying. (Even thoughIt is not saying anything about the motive but none the less it is saying loudly and clearly that executive are buying shares.)-->The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion

The second boldface is the conclusion itself and it says :- don't always trust the executive. -->The second gives a reason for questioning that support.

The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; --> Executive buying their own bank's share.
The second gives a reason for questioning that support.-->Sometimes it is a calculated attempt by executive to KNOWINGLY buy shares of their failing institute to pretend everything is great



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.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.


Originally posted by LogicGuru1 on 15 Jul 2016, 05:22.
Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 17 Jul 2016, 22:30, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2016, 21:35
BrainLab wrote:
Hi Karishma, thanks a lot for the response. I actually would like to know, whether the statements below are alternative wordings for a conclusion

argument as a whole seeks to explain
the argument seeks to establish


the argument seeks to establish - Yes, the argument establishes the conclusion

argument as a whole seeks to explain - this is unlikely to be a part of a usual argument with premises/conclusion etc. It might be a part of a plan/hypothesis/phenomenon kind of question. If you can provide links to questions in which you encountered these, I can provide more detailed explanations.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Posts: 85
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2016, 00:40
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 Karishma are there any Intermediate Conclusion also in the whole argument here?

I think these words because, since, hence, and thus are also the marker of conclusion, Right?
_________________

Richa Champion | My GMAT Journey - 470 720 740

Target 760+

Not Improving after Multiple attempts. I can guide You.
Contact me richacrunch2@gmail.com

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2016, 23:11
crunchboss 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 Karishma are there any Intermediate Conclusion also in the whole argument here?

I think these words because, since, hence, and thus are also the marker of conclusion, Right?


Because and since (used in the sense of because) indicate premises. They indicate beginning of clauses where the author is trying to give data/reasons for his opinion (which is the conclusion).
Hence and thus indicate conclusions.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2016
Posts: 8
Schools: AGSM '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.83
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2016, 03:05
Hello guys.

"Explanation that the argument seeks to establish" - does this phrase always refer to the main conclusion of the argument?

Thanks in advance
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2951
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2016, 07:44
2
Mamyan94 wrote:
Hello guys.

"Explanation that the argument seeks to establish" - does this phrase always refer to the main conclusion of the argument?

Thanks in advance


"Explanation" should generally refer to a premise, whereas something "that the argument seeks to establish" should generally be a conclusion. When both are together ("explanation that the argument seeks to establish"), then it possibly refers to an intermediate conclusion which is used as a premise for a final conclusion.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Oct 2014
Posts: 53
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 580 Q41 V28
GPA: 3.8
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 May 2017, 09:20
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
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2149
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 May 2017, 18:11
1
1
merajul wrote:
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

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.

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.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 20
Schools: Yale '20 (I)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37
Reviews Badge
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jun 2017, 01:12
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.


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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 146
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Reviews Badge
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jun 2017, 22:43
1
bhavikagoyal2009 wrote:

Please help me understand where my thinking is wrong.


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!]
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2017, 01:39
bhavikagoyal2009 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.


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.


(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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 264
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2017, 05:05
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.

Please help
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2017, 23:51
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.

Please help


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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 40
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2018, 01:12
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
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8678
Location: Pune, India
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Mar 2018, 04:58
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1269
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2018, 02:59
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)
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have &nbs [#permalink] 15 Apr 2018, 02:59

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.