If people refrained from being impolite to one another the condition

Question

If people refrained from being impolite to one another the condition of society would be greatly improved. But society would not be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite to each other. Enforcing such laws would create even more problems than does impoliteness.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that society would not be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite to each other?

(A) It is the conclusion drawn by the argument as a whole.

(B) It is cited as evidence for the generalization that is the argument's overall conclusion.

(C) It is cited as evidence for the assertion used to support the argument's overall conclusion.

(D) It is cited as an illustration of a generalization that serves as the main premise of the argument.

(E) It describes a phenomenon that the conclusion of the argument purports to explain.

swapnak · Accepted Answer

I think it's important to look at the structure of this argument more than the conditionality.

Sentence 1 states a general belief that 'If x, then y'. Sentence 2 starts with 'but' and shows us that the author disagrees with Statement 1. It establishes his opinion implying that this could be the intermediate or main conclusion depending on what follows next. Sentence 3 supports the judgement made in the previous sentence and thus acts as a premise supporting the conclusion.

Sentence 2 is the main conclusion, so that rules all the other options but choice (A).

I hope this helps.

chetan2u · Answer

Hi..

A person can get confused among the following two for conclusion..
1) But society would not be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite to each other.
2) Enforcing such laws would create even more problems than does impoliteness.

but 
point 2 is a PREMISE which supports the conclusion 1..

ONLY A talks of it as Conclusion
A

Tanmaysaxena97 · Answer

The conclusion should be implicit in this "the society can be better off if people are refrained from being impolite but without the enforcement of any governmental laws to do so."

The second sentence is mere premise used to support an implicit conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

Dhananjayrai · Answer

But isn’t it the other way around? 
We can write premise and conclusion as,
Because/ since PREMISE , Therefore CONCLUSION. In this case -
 
Since/ because - Enforcing such laws would create even more problems than does impoliteness.
Therefore, society would not be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite to each other.

Since/ because - society would not be better off if the government enacted laws requiring people to be polite to each other.
Therefore ,Enforcing such laws would create even more problems than does impoliteness.

Doesn’t second one make more sense as its first defining what law we are talking about to conclude that such law would create even more problems.?

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

If people refrained from being impolite to one another the condition

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

If people refrained from being impolite to one another the condition

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards