Studies of the relationship between public opinion and political actio

1st bold portion- nothing unique or very interesting about the state of public opinion on climate change. It starts with, "studies....shows". So, It is finding of studies.

2nd bold portion- efforts to intensify public opinion through apocalyptic visions or appeals to authority, have instead led to a loss of trust. It is supporting the finding of studies.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion; the second is that conclusion. -> Second is supporting the finding. Incorrect.

(B) The first provides the findings of a study; the second provides data that raises doubts on these findings. -> Second supports the finding. Incorrect.

(C) The first is the primary conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence to question this conclusion. ->First is the finding.

(D) The first provides the findings of a study; the second provides further elaboration of these findings. -> Correct.

(E) The first is a claim used to justify a conclusion; the second is a counter-claim that questions that conclusion-> Second is not counter-claim.

So, I think D.

IMO D:

Boldface 1 - a synopsis of a study
Boldface 2 - Author further add/detail out the observation

Answer – D

Argument Summary: According to studies, while there is generally a positive correlation between public opinion and political action, in case of the topic of ‘climate change’ such a correlation does not hold; in fact, it gets reversed at times.

Prediction for the two bold parts: The first provides the findings of a study and the second provides more details on these findings.

(A) If anything, the first is the conclusion and the second provides further support for it by providing more details.

(B) While the first part is correct, the second does not raise doubts on the first.

(C) While the first may be considered the conclusion, the second does not by any means question it.

(D) This perfectly matches our prediction above and should be the correct answer.

(E) There is no such conclusion in the entire stimulus that is supported by the first bold part and questioned by the second.­

Structure:

I) Considering first as intermediate conclusion: Study findings show nothing interesting (about public opinion about climate change)
II) Fact (Political action with less public support)
III) Counter-fact involving new findings based on the previous study (loss of trust and politics instead of motivation for supporting action)


(A) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion; the second is that conclusion = second is not a conclusion.
(B) The first provides the findings of a study; the second provides data that raises doubts on these findings. = second does not raise any doubts
(C) The first is the primary conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence to question this conclusion. = Conclusion is not explicit in this case; the boldfaced sentence is a study finding, which is a part of the conclusion, nevertheless, second does not question it.
(D) The first provides the findings of a study; the second provides further elaboration of these findings. = CORRECT and Closest.
(E) The first is a claim used to justify a conclusion; the second is a counter-claim that questions that conclusion. = second does not counter the conclusion.

hello expert,
I couldn't understand this question. OE says BF1 is the main conclusion, but I think BF2 should be the conclusion, so why is A wrong?
Also, BF2 means political actions of climate change result in loss of trust rather than further support, but how does this explain "people show nothing interesting on climate change"?
Any expert or anybody can explain in details? thanks.

I hope the official explanation doesn't call either of these boldface statements a conclusion—because neither of them is a conclusion.
Both boldface statements are just reporting the present situation.

The first boldface does look like an opinion, but, take a look at how it's used in the passage: it's a starting point, not an end point (conclusion).
The next statement says, "Stuff has gotten accomplished with even less public support than [what the first boldface describes]"—i.e., this statement uses the first boldface as a starting point and builds on it.



None of the choices is a very good description of the second boldface.

The passage basically works like this:
• Situation in boldface 1
• Here's some good stuff that's happened previously, in situations worse than boldface 1
• BUT... Boldface 2: This time things are going especially badly.

So.... ideally, we want a choice that says something like "Boldface 2 describes an outcome that departs from previous results in analogous/comparable situations."



Probably the best take-home point you can get from this problem is that it's best to stick with official problems from GMAC. (:

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.