Last visit was: 19 Jul 2025, 20:42 It is currently 19 Jul 2025, 20:42
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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 Level|   Bold Face CR|                                       
User avatar
perfectstranger
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Last visit: 27 May 2013
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
4,665
 [721]
Given Kudos: 28
Posts: 139
Kudos: 4,665
 [721]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have Updated on: 29 Oct 2023, 11:35
Originally posted by perfectstranger on 19 Aug 2009, 15:05.
Last edited by Bunuel on 29 Oct 2023, 11:35, edited 3 times in total.
50
Kudos
Add Kudos
669
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:06) correct 52% (02:14) wrong based on 14690 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.


Similar question: LINK
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,359
Own Kudos:
68,585
 [177]
Given Kudos: 1,969
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 Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,359
Kudos: 68,585
 [177]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 28 Mar 2018, 08:56
111
Kudos
Add Kudos
66
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Since this is a boldface question, let's start by ignoring the BF and focusing on the conclusion and argument. The conclusion is that "[the reasoning of the bank's depositor's] might well be overoptimistic." Now let's breakdown the argument (again, ignore the BF for now):

  • First, there were "rumors that the bank faced-impending financial collapse." These rumors made the bank's depositors worried.
  • Then, it became known that "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank." This news made the bank's depositors relieved (i.e. made them stop worrying).
  • Why were they relieved by this news? "They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false." - If several of the bank's top execs have been buying shares in their own bank, they must have faith in the bank's financial soundness. Thus, according to the depositors, the actions of the execs shows that the rumors about financial collapse must be false.
  • Why does the author believe that the depositors are being overoptimistic? Because "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"

According to the depositors, the execs actions are evidence that the execs have faith in the bank's financial soundness. The author suggests an alternative explanation for the execs actions. The execs might be buying the shares NOT because they have faith but because they want to dispel negative rumors about the company's health. Obviously such rumors, true or not, would be bad for the company, so it makes sense that execs would want to dispel those rumors.

Now that we understand the argument, let's see how the boldfaced portions fit into that argument:

    1) "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank" - The depositors took this as evidence that the execs had faith in the bank's financial soundness. According to the author, this evidence does NOT necessarily support the depositors' belief.
    2) "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 other words, "BECAUSE there's another possible explanation," the author questions the depositors' logic. The 2nd boldfaced portion is the reason why the author questions their logic

Which answer choice best describes the boldfaced portions?

Quote:
(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
The depositors believe that the first BF portion is evidence that the execs had faith in the bank's financial soundness. Thus, the first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting the conclusion of the depositors. The first half looks good.

The second BF portion explains WHY the author questions the depositors' logic. The 2nd includes an alternative explanation for the execs actions. So perhaps those actions do NOT support the conclusion of the depositors. Thus, the 2nd gives a reason for questioning whether the 1st actually supports the depositors' conclusion. (A) looks good.

Quote:
(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.
As described for (A), the first part looks good. But the second part is not the author's conclusion. The author's conclusion (the contrary conclusion) is that "[the reasoning of the bank's depositor's] might well be overoptimistic." The second BF portion supports the author's conclusion, but it is not the conclusion itself. Eliminate (B).

Quote:
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
The first is evidence in support of the depositors' conclusion, not the main conclusion of the argument. Again, the second is not the main conclusion. Eliminate (C).

Quote:
(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 author does not claim that the execs are buying shares because "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 other words, the 2nd portion is not presented as an explanation itself. Instead, it is the reason the author questions the depositors' explanation.

Also, 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) does not accurately describe the purpose of the argument as a whole. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(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.
The author is not necessarily trying to establish that the execs were buying shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health. The author simply wants to present this possibility to show that the depositors might be wrong.

Also, as described for (D), the first half does not accurately describe the purpose of the argument as a whole. Eliminate (E).

(A) is the best option.
User avatar
jlgdr
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Last visit: 24 Jul 2015
Posts: 1,316
Own Kudos:
2,729
 [62]
Given Kudos: 355
Concentration: Finance
Schools: Wharton '17 (A) HBS '17 (WA$)
Schools: Wharton '17 (A) HBS '17 (WA$)
Posts: 1,316
Kudos: 2,729
 [62]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 08 Dec 2013, 15:42
43
Kudos
Add Kudos
19
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Let’s begin dissecting. The conclusion is ‘Such reasoning might be overoptimistic’. So the second boldface is actually the premise. Now I’m not 100% sure what the first boldface is. But I’m pretty sure that the second one is the premise. So let’s start eliminating answer choices that say otherwise. ‘B’ says that the second is a conclusion. This is clearly not the case. ‘C’ also says that the second boldface is a conclusion, when we have already identified it as a premise. ‘D’ says that the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish. This sounds as if it were the conclusion too. So this doesn’t fit the bill either. Now ‘E’ says that the second provides evidence in support. This sounds like a premise so I’ll keep it. Now between ‘A’ and ‘E’ we will have to check what the first boldface might mean. ‘A’ says that the first bold is ‘a premise that supports A conclusion’. Not necessarily the ‘main conclusion’, whilst ‘E’ is saying that it is A conclusion, not a premise. The first boldface is clearly a premise. They have been relieved, why? Because executives have been buying shares. So ‘A’ is the correct answer.

This question is in fact very difficult because it is based on your ability to distinguish among premises and conclusion. Note that the stimulus contains all of these: counterpremise, counterconclusion, premise and conclusion. By using the ‘why’ technique we can easily differentiate between premises and conclusions. Another key takeaway is to be aware of the phrase ‘A conclusion’ and be able to consider that there may be more than one conclusion in a stimulus.

Hope it helps
Cheers!
J :)
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,115
Own Kudos:
74,410
 [45]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,115
Kudos: 74,410
 [45]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have Updated on: 06 Jun 2024, 00:22
Originally posted by KarishmaB on 13 Aug 2012, 23:18.
Last edited by KarishmaB on 06 Jun 2024, 00:22, edited 2 times in total.
21
Kudos
Add Kudos
23
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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'.

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

Correct as discussed above.

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

(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.

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.­

Answer (A)­

Boldface questions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY
 
avatar
mikeCoolBoy
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Last visit: 24 Dec 2012
Posts: 178
Own Kudos:
1,560
 [21]
Given Kudos: 9
 Q50  V40
Posts: 178
Kudos: 1,560
 [21]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 20 Aug 2009, 00:05
18
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I also think that the answer should be A. Here's my line of reasoning


Premise 1: several of a bank's ' top executives have been buying shares in their own bank
Sub-conclusion: the bank's depositors have been greatly relieved

Premise 2: top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness
Sub-conclusion: those worrisome rumors must be false

conclusion and MP: Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic
Premise 3 that supports the main conclusion: 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

IMO the main point is that the reasoning is not good. So what the argument seeks to establish is that the bank's depositors wrongly assumed that several top executives have been buying shares in their own bank because they have faith in the bank's financial soundness

taking a look at the answer choices

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

This seems to fit with the structure of the passage. The first bold face statement support the conclusion that top executives have been buying shares in their own bank because they have faith in the bank

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.
The second bold face statement is not a conclusion, so we can rule this one out.

C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion
second is not a conclusion but rather a premise. We can rule out this one as well.

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.

What the argument seeks to explain is that bank's depositors wrongly drew their conclusion and this is not mentioned in the first bold statement.

E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

Same reasoning as in D.
General Discussion
avatar
aramisLab
avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Last visit: 07 Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
10
 [7]
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 3
Kudos: 10
 [7]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 24 Jul 2012, 17:28
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tried this question for the second time and came up with (A) as the answer.

as for choice (D):
(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 argument as a whole is not seeking to explain the first boldface, namely several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank
but instead is trying to refute the claim that rumors about impending financial collapse of the bank must be false.
User avatar
crackHSW
User avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Last visit: 04 Dec 2024
Posts: 248
Own Kudos:
479
 [16]
Given Kudos: 27
Status:Now or never
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Schools: McCombs '15 (D) Jones '15 (D) Foster '15 (M) McDonough '15 (WL) Anderson '15 (D) Mays '15 (D)
GPA: 3.5
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Schools: McCombs '15 (D) Jones '15 (D) Foster '15 (M) McDonough '15 (WL) Anderson '15 (D) Mays '15 (D)
Posts: 248
Kudos: 479
 [16]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 13 Aug 2012, 09:47
12
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Clear A , for boldface questions I found to go through the following steps -->

1) Identify the main conclusion of the passage , then see what part does bold face plays in the conclusion.
2) Identify the tone of the parts , generally its easy to discard some options on this basis.
Example -->
several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank and
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

These two are opposite in tones so one can decide on that. In this question all the answer choices except A and B have the two parts in same tone.

Now among A and B , B states for second part that its the main conclusion which it is not cause the main conclusion is

since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false

Hence A prevails
User avatar
TGC
User avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Last visit: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 581
Own Kudos:
3,492
Given Kudos: 322
Concentration: General Management, General Management
Schools: ISB '16 NUS '17 NTU '17 XLRI SMU '17 IIM Lucknow IPMX'16 (A)
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE:Information Technology (Finance: Investment Banking)
Schools: ISB '16 NUS '17 NTU '17 XLRI SMU '17 IIM Lucknow IPMX'16 (A)
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
Posts: 581
Kudos: 3,492
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have Updated on: 15 Jan 2013, 11:12
Originally posted by TGC on 15 Jan 2013, 11:01.
Last edited by TGC on 15 Jan 2013, 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Folks,

People are accepting that conclusion is :Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic
Then how A,B,C could be answers.

Plz anyone can elaborate reasoning behind A if the above mentioned is the conclusion.

Rgds,
Saurabh
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,115
Own Kudos:
74,410
 [5]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,115
Kudos: 74,410
 [5]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 15 Jan 2013, 20:18
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
targetgmatchotu
Folks,

People are accepting that conclusion is :Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic
Then how A,B,C could be answers.

Plz anyone can elaborate reasoning behind A if the above mentioned is the conclusion.

Rgds,
Saurabh

There are two different conclusions here:

A conclusion: Depositors are relieved - belief of people in general
The argument gives the reasons they are relieved.

Main conclusion of the argument - this is the author's belief - 'Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic'
The author gives the reasons why this reasoning may be overoptimisitic.

(A) states 'The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion'
It doesn't say that it supports the 'main conclusion'.

(C) says that 'The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument'
This is certainly incorrect.
avatar
rajgurinder
avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Last visit: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
80
Given Kudos: 7
Schools: INSEAD Jan '15 AGSM '15
Schools: INSEAD Jan '15 AGSM '15
Posts: 17
Kudos: 80
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 03 Jul 2014, 13:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
To e-gmat

As per session given by Chiranjeev, something that author believes i.e his opinion can be regarded as intermediate conclusion.
Here in the correct choice - A, the first boldface is taken as a conclusion.
I actually scoped it out because of the reason given above.
Also, Why E is wrong here.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,601
Own Kudos:
32,370
 [1]
Given Kudos: 687
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,601
Kudos: 32,370
 [1]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 07 Jul 2014, 22:00
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rajgurinder
To e-gmat

As per session given by Chiranjeev, something that author believes i.e his opinion can be regarded as intermediate conclusion.
Here in the correct choice - A, the first boldface is taken as a conclusion.
I actually scoped it out because of the reason given above.
Also, Why E is wrong here.

Hi Gurinder

Thanks for writing to us. :)

Before we go on to discussing the correct answer choice, I would like to request you to share your passage analysis with us. Accordingly, please identify each statement as a fact or an opinion and the role played by the boldface portions with respect to the main conclusion of the argument.

Also, please share your understanding of answer choices A and E.

I would specifically want you to reconsider option A. Does it describe first boldface portion as a conclusion? Or does choice A call the first boldface as evidence?

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

Your analysis would help me in not only addressing this particular doubt but also any possible gaps in your conceptual understanding. Hope you’ll appreciate the same. :)

Thanks!
Dolly
avatar
rajgurinder
avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Last visit: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
80
Given Kudos: 7
Schools: INSEAD Jan '15 AGSM '15
Schools: INSEAD Jan '15 AGSM '15
Posts: 17
Kudos: 80
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 13 Jul 2014, 09:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
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.


My analysis

please correct if i am wrong:-
A circumstance is something that is happening currently.

several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank - FACT/Circumstance
the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. - A circumstance
Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic - Conclusion
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 - Evidence/Fact supporting a conclusion

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

As per session given by Chiranjeev, something that author believes i.e his opinion can be regarded as intermediate conclusion.
Here in the correct choice - A, the first boldface is taken as a conclusion.

(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.

Here the argument is explaining why the FIRST BOLDFACE happens, in SECOND BOLDFACE he provides evidence for the explaining that argument seeks to establish(conclusion)
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,601
Own Kudos:
32,370
 [4]
Given Kudos: 687
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,601
Kudos: 32,370
 [4]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 16 Jul 2014, 02:44
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rajgurinder
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.


My analysis

please correct if i am wrong:-
A circumstance is something that is happening currently.

several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank - FACT/Circumstance
the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. - A circumstance
Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic - Conclusion
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 - Evidence/Fact supporting a conclusion

Hi Gurinder

Thanks for your response! :)

Your analysis of the statements is quite correct; however, you haven’t presented your analysis for the following statement:

“They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false.”


Also, is a circumstance always something that is happening currently or can it also be a set of facts that are not time bound?

"Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic" – This is the main conclusion of the argument.
Quote:

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

As per session given by Chiranjeev, something that author believes i.e his opinion can be regarded as intermediate conclusion.
Here in the correct choice - A, the first boldface is taken as a conclusion.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, I would want you to reconsider option A. Does it describe first boldface portion as a conclusion? Or does choice A call the first boldface as evidence?
(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.

You have not understood option A correctly. BF is stated as evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion. In other words, BF is evidence that supports something. What is this something? It is a conclusion. Now is this conclusion the author’s conclusion? To determine the same, you need to define the role of the statement that you have missed in your analysis. Accordingly, please decide whether the conclusion presented in the highlighted portion is by the author or the bank depositors:

They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false.

Second thing, in BF questions is there a difference between a conclusion and the conclusion? Can’t a third party make “a” conclusion in such arguments? Accordingly, the conclusion highlighted above is an intermediate conclusion by the author or “a” conclusion made by a third party?

Quote:
(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.

Here the argument is explaining why the FIRST BOLDFACE happens, in SECOND BOLDFACE he provides evidence for the explaining that argument seeks to establish(conclusion)

Let me ask you a question here. Is the purpose of the argument to explain why the bank depositor’s act in a certain way or is to call in question the reason for their behaviour? Look at the main conclusion again and decide over this.

Please do let me know what you think. :)

Dolly
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 11,294
Own Kudos:
41,843
 [9]
Given Kudos: 333
Status:Math and DI Expert
Products:
My Reviews
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 11,294
Kudos: 41,843
 [9]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 16 Feb 2016, 07:36
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anujagarwal11
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
User avatar
BrainLab
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Last visit: 26 Jan 2025
Posts: 350
Own Kudos:
3,016
Given Kudos: 200
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: WHU MBA"20 (A$)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
Schools: WHU MBA"20 (A$)
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
Posts: 350
Kudos: 3,016
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have Updated on: 26 Jun 2024, 08:18
Originally posted by BrainLab on 15 Jul 2016, 06:22.
Last edited by Bunuel on 26 Jun 2024, 08:18, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,115
Own Kudos:
74,410
 [3]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,115
Kudos: 74,410
 [3]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 17 Jul 2016, 22:35
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
BrainLab
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.
User avatar
RichaChampion
User avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Last visit: 02 Jan 2018
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
87
Given Kudos: 82
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
Posts: 70
Kudos: 87
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 26 Jul 2016, 01:40
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.


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?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,115
Own Kudos:
74,410
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,115
Kudos: 74,410
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 27 Jul 2016, 00:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
crunchboss
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 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.
avatar
Mamyan94
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2016
Last visit: 15 Oct 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 7
Schools: AGSM '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.83
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: AGSM '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
Posts: 6
Kudos: 18
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 10 Sep 2016, 04:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello guys.

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

Thanks in advance
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,395
Own Kudos:
15,466
 [2]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,395
Kudos: 15,466
 [2]
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have 10 Sep 2016, 08:44
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mamyan94
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.
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts