The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will

I guess the correct answer is "B" IMO.

Can someone explain the reasoning here? TIA!

Maheshkv The reasoning is:

The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will surely contribute towards reestablishing the city as the central trading hub it used to be in the past. Though a certain part of the ancient wall will have to be removed as part of the project, the project will, if it meets the analysts' predictions, raise the GNP (Gross National Product) by over 10% over the first four years following its completion. The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.

Conclusion is: The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.
Why: Because everything else supports this statement. If you were to ask the author "Why the past cannot be allowed to hold back the future?"

Then he would say because:
(1) The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will surely contribute towards reestablishing the city as the central trading hub it used to be in the past.

(2) The project will, if it meets the analysts' predictions, raise the GNP (Gross National Product) by over 10% over the first four years following its completion.

This statement "a certain part of the ancient wall will have to be removed as part of the project" goes against his main position because "the ancient wall" could hold some value for some people and they might be against its removal. So by acknowledging this fact, the author has removed one possible objection to his position. The presence of "though" shows contrast. According to the author, keeping the wall will be less beneficial for the city than its removal.

I hope it helps.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will surely contribute towards reestablishing the city as the central trading hub it used to be in the past. Though a certain part of the ancient wall will have to be removed as part of the project, the project will, if it meets the analysts' predictions, raise the GNP (Gross National Product) by over 10% over the first four years following its completion. The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.

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


A. The first is a prediction; the second is evidence in support of that prediction.

Incorrect.

This is a Boldface Type question, in which you are required to define the role of the two boldface sections in the argument. Read the argument and break it down using indicative words:

• Sentences 1 is a prediction, a statement about the future. (Note that although it is a prediction we can't be sure whether to classify it as a premise or a conclusion until we finish breaking down the argument.)
• The first boldface portion, or the first half of sentence 2, begins with though, a conjunction of opposition, and introduces a fact. Therefore, we can classify it as a premise which weighs against the rest of the sentence.
• The second part of sentence 2 is another prediction, leading to sentence 3.
• The second boldface portion, or sentence 3, is a judgment that resembles a recommendation, which indicates it is the conclusion of the argument, which relies on the previous predictions. The author is saying that the benefits of the project (10% increase in GNP) outweigh the drawbacks (removing part of the ancient wall).
• Since the conclusion in sentence 3 is based on the previous predictions, we can now reclassify the predictions in sentences 1 and 2 and recognize them as premises leading to the conclusion that "the past cannot be allowed to hold back the future".
• This answer choice tries to distract you by describing the first boldface as a prediction. Even though the first boldface uses the future tense (will have to be removed), it is incorrect to define it as a prediction.

The argument describes the need to remove a part of the old city wall as a fact (i.e as something certain rather than uncertain). Since the removal of part of the wall is a given - a required condition for carrying out the project - it cannot be defined as a prediction. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.

Another reason to eliminate this answer choice is that the incorrectly defines the second boldface portion as evidence of the prediction that part of the wall will have to be removed. The second boldface's statement about the past not holding back the future is not evidence of anything - it is the argument's conclusion and bottom line.


B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the argument advocates; the second is that position.

The author's position can be identified in the conclusion: The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future. In other words: the ancient wall should be removed.

The first boldface is a consideration against this position because it describes the removal of the wall as a drawback: Though a certain part, etc. Nobody is eager to see an ancient monumental relic of archeological importance torn down. This is why this statement weighs against the proposal to tear down the wall.


C. The first is evidence against the position of the speaker; the second is evidence in support of it.

Incorrect.

This is a Boldface Type question, in which you are required to define the role of the two boldface sections in the argument. Read the argument and break it down using indicative words:

• Sentences 1 is a prediction, a statement about the future. (Note that although it is a prediction we can't be sure whether to classify it as a premise or a conclusion until we finish breaking down the argument.)
• The first boldface portion, or the first half of sentence 2, begins with though, a conjunction of opposition, and introduces a fact. Therefore, we can classify it as a premise which weighs against the rest of the sentence.
• The second part of sentence 2 is another prediction, leading to sentence 3.
• The second boldface portion, or sentence 3, is a judgment that resembles a recommendation, which indicates it is the conclusion of the argument, which relies on the previous predictions. The author is saying that the benefits of the project (10% increase in GNP) outweigh the drawbacks (removing part of the ancient wall).
• Since the conclusion in sentence 3 is based on the previous predictions, we can now reclassify the predictions in sentences 1 and 2 and recognize them as premises leading to the conclusion that "the past cannot be allowed to hold back the future".

While this answer choice defines the first boldface part correctly, it defines the second incorrectly. The second boldfaced portion is a position or a recommendation; it is not hard evidence.


D. The first is an inference that weighs against the main position that the argument advocates; the second is that position.

Incorrect.

An inference is a conclusion based upon premises, whereas the need to remove of the wall for the project is factual - a premise in itself. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.

E. The first is evidence against the position of the speaker; the second is a prediction in support of it.

Incorrect.

While this answer choice defines the first boldface part correctly, it defines the second incorrectly. The second boldfaced portion does not discuss the future and therefore is not a prediction; it is a position or a recommendation which relies on the predictions in the argument.