It is currently 27 Jun 2017, 05:43

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1342
#Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2008, 08:33
4
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:50) correct 39% (01:46) wrong based on 91 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

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

(A) The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.

(B) The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

(D) The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.

(E) The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.

Same argument but different boldface. [LINK]
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by hazelnut on 21 Jun 2017, 01:03, edited 4 times in total.
OA updated. GMAT Prep Q
Manager
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 51
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2008, 08:39
Don't know how to explain it though, it seems more or less obvious to me
hopefully i'm not wrong!

Curious, which study material is this from?
Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 782
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2008, 13:28
A too
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1892
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2008, 19:35
goalsnr wrote:
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims
were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the
number of car-theft policies it carries
, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices
. Many policyholders will respond
to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will
within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars
with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual
payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish.

Discuss your approach to solve this CR.

1. The first boldface is a consideration, so A, B and D out
2. The second boldface is NOT a main conclusion, so E out

C
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 297
Location: Hungary
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2008, 05:31
1
KUDOS
I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused!
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3357
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2008, 13:53
i think A is best..

all others just dont make sense...
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1342
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2008, 15:45
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
[quote="zoltan"]I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused! [/quote

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.
Thats teh whole purpose of this thread. For bold face CRs thi sis teh strategy I use:
1. I pick one of the bold statements- Usually the one I understand clearly.
2. I go through the answers choices and eliminate choices which donot adhere to the statement. For example the statement could serve as an evidence, assumption or conclusion in the argument. I use this knowledge as the basis to eliminate answer choices.
3. I repeat step 2 with other statement.

Most of the times this approach works for me.

Gmatnub, Sinha, sondeso...do you guys want to explain your approach too?
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1892
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2008, 18:31
1
KUDOS
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
zoltan wrote:
I have really trouble with these kind of questions.

How should I attack these kind of questions? Consideration, Judgment, strategy and etc... So difficult to figure the answer out in 2 min.

I get confused!

goalsnr wrote:
Gmatnub, Sinha, sondeso...do you guys want to explain your approach too?

You should go dig the forum "New to this forum". I think, this stuff is useful. For example, you know what is "consideration", what is "evidence"....
There are some tips useful too.

For the boldface, the first and the key is "Should find out exactly what is the [main] conclusion"

I go to the New to Verbal Forum, copy and past here!

Principle: something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact: something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence: what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

Background:
Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion: Self-explanatory

Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 297
Location: Hungary
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2008, 05:05
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 297
Location: Hungary
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2008, 05:12
Manager
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 75
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2009, 21:24
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

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

(A) The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.

(B) The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

(D) The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.

(E) The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.
Manager
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2009, 22:42
ankur55 wrote:
During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims
were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the
number of car-theft policies it carries,
so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices.
Many policyholders will respond
to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will
within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars
with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual
payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish.

First sentence tell you the limit to achieve certain goal.

Which coincides with Option A.

Second sentence suggests alternate plan. After second sentence the plan is elaborated & reasoned.

Which also coincides with Option A. :D

Hope I am right.
_________________

I am ready to fall, but not before I fly.

Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 787
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2009, 22:54
Tricky question. I would opt A, though some other options also looks quite tempting.

The argument is talking about two strategies to reduce the payout:
1st, by changing the car-theft policies, which is not possible
2nd, by encouraging policyholders to install anti-theft device
Based on this the argument is giving the conclusion to opt for 2nd strategy.

Please note, this is not the main conclusion. Rather the main conclusion is in the last line "Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts."

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses. -Correct
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion. -First is not a judgment to support 2nd, rather both are different strategies.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy. -Both are different strategies, without any relation.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a
goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal. -Both are different strategies, without any relation.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for
achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking
to establish. -2nd is a sub-conclusion, and not the main conclusion. Rather the main conclusion is in the last line.
_________________
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 881
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2009, 23:13
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way.

Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices
.

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the

C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

Between A and C. I would go for C.
If Blue+Red was boldfaced, I would have chosen A. Because, then it 'rules out' the strategy.

Since it is not the case, first one is only a consideration.
OA pls.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 157
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2009, 00:15
+1 for C.
Manager
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 75
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2009, 00:54
irajeevsingh wrote:
+1 for C.

I also chose C, however OA is A
More explanations pls
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 881
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2009, 01:07
ankur55 wrote:
irajeevsingh wrote:
+1 for C.

I also chose C, however OA is A
More explanations pls

It is touch and go. The only thing that might make A stronger is:
"and whose effectiveness the argument assesses"...this is what the rest of the argument does.

Question to be noted, lets see if we get something similar..if yes then we can conclude that answers that encompass the argument are considered a better choice for boldfaced
Manager
Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2009, 03:04
Economist wrote:
[color=#FF0000][b]
Between A and C. I would go for C.
If Blue+Red was boldfaced, I would have chosen A. Because, then it 'rules out' the strategy.

Since it is not the case, first one is only a consideration.
OA pls.

I think people who marked C, did not understand this type of question properly. (No offence)

We are supposed to find the 'Role' of the sentence. Even though 'blue part' is not bold, it is still there in given abstract. The first bold part gives you the reason that strategy will not work. 'blue part' is merely a sentence which states that 'strategy is ruled out'. It is the red part that reasons.
_________________

I am ready to fall, but not before I fly.

Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 33
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2009, 13:26
Economist wrote:
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large
payouts that way.

Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of
car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices
.

A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the

C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy
for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.

Between A and C. I would go for C.
If Blue+Red was boldfaced, I would have chosen A. Because, then it 'rules out' the strategy.

Since it is not the case, first one is only a consideration.
OA pls.

Brand new here (this forum and the accompnaying community are great BTW) but thought I would chime in. C is wrong because of two words:

1.) "support" - If the "certain strategy" is to reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, the first is then a consideration against adopting that strategy, not in support of it.

2.) "alternative" - Alternatively (no pun intended), if you interpret the first as a consideration in "support" of the "certain strategy" of offering discounts for customers who install anti-theft devices (which, at least to me, seems plausible), then the decision would not be for an alternative strategy.

Hope the questions keep coming - this is great practice.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 61
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2014, 09:47
Hi E-GMAT,

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were
larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of
car-theft policies it carries,
so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that
way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft
policies whose cars have antitheft devices.
Many policyholders will respond to the
discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years
typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are
rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. In the argument above,
the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving
a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the
second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the
second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.

Lets Break this sentence.

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total payouts on car-theft claims were
larger than the company can afford to sustain. Author opinion

Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries,...Author judgment

so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. conclusion based on Author judgment.

Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Author plan/decision.

Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Author prediction/supporting statement.

Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect’s plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts. Main conclusion.

So First in the BOLD statement, Could you please explain, How come a first bold statement support adopting a certain statergy ,which statergy we are talking about? .

The only statergy i can see is the Second bold statement. just by saying the company can't reduce the number of the policies,dosent mean its support adopting a certain statergy.

Please through some light on this.

Thanks

Nitin
Re: #Top150 CR: During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company’s total   [#permalink] 05 May 2014, 09:47

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 49 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 #Top150 CR: The noise caused by airplanes during takeoff and landing 3 29 Aug 2016, 00:40
3 #Top150 CR: The noise caused by airplanes during takeoff and landing 7 17 May 2017, 19:04
28 Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more 10 14 Mar 2017, 14:03
23 During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total 16 15 Jan 2016, 02:53
6 During each of the past five years, the total demand for 13 14 Sep 2015, 02:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by