IMO-AUnderstanding the Passage:o In Jan last Year, Wisdom Inv.
decided to split further its categories of investments.
o This was done to encourage analytics
identify & exploit trends in each categories.
o The stakeholders are
doubtful if this
approach really
benefited the organisation.
o Analysis suggest that the
organisation has
benefited. Though Man-hour spent increased, returns on investment was significantly higher (that lead to greater investments in-turn and stronger brand value)
o Conclusion:
Approach Pros (advantages/benefits) > Cons (disadvantages/loss)BF 1 Wisdom Investments decided to further break each of its 12 categories of investment into 3 and encouraged its analysts to identify and exploit trends in each of the now 36 categories. BF 2 the new approach has benefited the organizationBF Analysis: So as per our understanding of passage, The first BF is a finding (Split & Identify/exploit trends for benefit), and the argument is trying to ascertain the implication of a finding (whether Inv. split into further categories was beneficial/not), and the second BF (the new approach has benefited the organization) is a subset for the conclusion that states that the organisation has benefited more than it lost.
Answer choice analysis: As per analysis, A, B, E are the contenders as the first BF is a finding.
A. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument.-----
Correct-----The first BF (Split- identify & exploit trend) is a finding the implication (Beneficial/Not- for org.) of which argument seek to evaluate. he Second BF (Org.
benefited) is a part/content of the conclusion that states Pros (Advt./
Benefits) > Cons (Disadvt./loss) for the organisation
B. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the conclusion of the argument into question.-----
Incorrect-----First Bf is finding
(Ok) implication (Benefit/loss) of which argument seek to evaluate, however second BF (the new approach has
benefited the organization) not questions the conclusion. it is rather a
content of the conclusion which is Pros (Advt./
Benefits) > Cons (Disadvt./loss) for the organisation.
C. The
first identifies the
content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion-----
Incorrect-----The fist BF is a finding the implication (Benefited/Not) of which provide content to make conclusion. Second BF states the company has benefited but no comparison whether the benefits were more than losses, so not support the conclusion
pros > cons.
D. The
first provides
support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.-----
Incorrect-----The implication(Benefited/Not) of first BF provides support for the conclusion and not the finding itself. 'Whether' is not a part of BF2 so it doesn't question the conclusion. Also second BF is just one part (benefit) of the conclusion.
E. The first is a finding the implications of which the argument seeks to evaluate; the second calls the
finding into
question.-----
Incorrect-----The first BF , a finding implication which argument seeks to establish, is ok here. the second BF not questions anything- 'whether' not a part of this BF (Let assume even if it questions, then that will be the
implication of the finding and not the
finding itself)