Since this is a Bold Face 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?


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.


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).


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).


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).


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.
_________________

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.
_________________

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

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.

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.

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

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.
_________________

OA?
What is the official answer? A?
Why not B?

The OA is A.

B is incorrect because the second boldface is not the main conclusion of the argument. the main conclusion of the argument is "Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic"
Conclusions are not facts; they are opinions of the author. The second boldface is a premise, a fact given to you. It is not the author's opinion and hence not the conclusion.
_________________

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.

I am Never Good at these type of CR. Please help me with some Document on these.

I marked (D) and Guess I was completely wrong with this one.

I assume you are having trouble with bold face questions. Here are a couple of posts on these that might help you:

http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/03 ... -the-gmat/
http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2014/01 ... questions/

For the solution of this question, check: since-it-has-become-known-that-several-of-a-bank-s-top-136001.html#p1112808
_________________

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
_________________

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)

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.


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?



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
_________________

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?