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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!]

(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.

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.

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.

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.




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.

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)