Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass

Question

Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass a national park because they believe coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage. This belief is mistaken. Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport. Consequently, they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss.

Which of the following most accurately describes how the two sentences in boldface function in the coal exporter’s reasoning?

A. The first sentence functions as support for the only conclusion of the reasoning; the second sentence states that conclusion.

B. The first sentence functions as support for the only conclusion of the reasoning; the second sentence describes a supposed result of the circumstance that the first sentence describes.

C. The first sentence functions as support for an intermediate conclusion; the second sentence functions as support for the assertion made by the first sentence.

D. The first sentence states an intermediate conclusion; the second sentence states the main conclusion of the reasoning.

E. The first sentence describes a situation that the reasoning seeks to causally explain; the second sentence provides a possible explanation.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-qrabj66a.png [ 104.1 KiB | Viewed 3570 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

B

Question exposed a gap? Take sectional Adaptive Quant, Verbal, or DI tests on GMAT Club and review the detailed score report. Get started →

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass a national park because they believe coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage. This belief is mistaken.  Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport . Consequently,  they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss .

The passage opens with a statement about a belief:

Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass a national park because they believe coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage.

The passage next states the coal exporter's main conclusion:

This belief is mistaken.

Finally, it presents premises that support the main conclusion:

Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport . Consequently,  they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss .

We have to be a little careful with this passage because it's easy to get the impression that the main conclusion is " they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss ," because that statement is at the end of the passage and is preceded by "consequently" and because the actual main conclusion is a rather short sentence that's easy to miss, "This belief is mistaken."

Which of the following most accurately describes how the two sentences in boldface function in the coal exporter’s reasoning?

A. The first sentence functions as support for the only conclusion of the reasoning; the second sentence states that conclusion.

The first part of this choice is correct because the first boldface portion does help to support the main conclusion, "This belief is mistaken," and since that conclusion is the only conclusion involved in the reasoning of the argument.

However, the second boldfaced portion is not a conclusion, even though it's at the end of the passage and is preceded by "consequently." Rather, it is part of the support for the conclusion "This belief is mistaken." After all, the fact that exporters spray the coal with a "sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss" indicates that the belief that "coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage" is mistaken.

So, this choice is half incorrect and thus cannot be the correct answer.

Eliminate.

B. The first sentence functions as support for the only conclusion of the reasoning; the second sentence describes a supposed result of the circumstance that the first sentence describes.

The first part of this choice is correct because the first boldfaced portion does help to support the main conclusion "This belief is mistaken," by explaining the fact stated by the second boldfaced portion, which in turn directly supports the main conclusion.

Also, the second part of this choice is correct because the second boldfaced portion does describe a supposed result, or consquence of the first boldfaced portion. After all, the fact that exporters spray the coal with a sealant is a logical consequence of the fact that they " have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport ."

So, both parts of this choice are correct.

Keep.

C. The first sentence functions as support for an intermediate conclusion; the second sentence functions as support for the assertion made by the first sentence.

The first boldfaced portion does not support an intermediate conclusion. Rather it helps to support the main conclusion "This belief is mistaken," by explaining why " they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss ."

Also, the second boldfaced portion does not support the first. Rather, the first explains the second.

Eliminate.

D. The first sentence states an intermediate conclusion; the second sentence states the main conclusion of the reasoning.

The first boldfaced portion does not state a conclusion. It states a fact that helps to support the main conclusion "This belief is mistaken."

Also, the second boldfaced portion is not a conclusion, even though it's at the end of the passage and is preceded by "consequently." Rather, it is part of the support for the conclusion "This belief is mistaken." After all, the fact that exporters spray the coal with a " sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss " indicates that the belief that "coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage" is mistaken.

Eliminate.

E. The first sentence describes a situation that the reasoning seeks to causally explain; the second sentence provides a possible explanation.

The first boldfaced portion does describe a situation, but the passage provides no explanation for that situation.

Also, the second boldfaced portion does not explain the first. Rather, the first boldfaced portion,  "Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport ," explains the second, " they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss ."

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  B

shashank07! · Answer

Hi Marty, How could you identify that both the boldfaces are premise? Isn't the second boldface also a conclusion because if we use the therefore test, we get : Because exporter have incentives .... therefore they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant.

SnorLax_7 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray   KarishmaB   DmitryFarber

Does the 'the only conclusion' here imply support to the main conclusion ? or Does it imply support to only the main conclusion and not the intermediate conclusion ?

Kindly can you help ?

Thanks !

KarishmaB · Answer

The question has no intermediate conclusion. It has only one conclusion - The belief (that coal dust blowing off coal trains could cause significant environmental damage to national parks) is mistaken We select an answer which talks about "only one conclusion" if the argument does have only one conclusion. Premises: Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport. Consequently, they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss. They both support the main conclusion. Neither gives the author's intermediate opinion. Even if it uses consequently, the second statement gives us a fact. It is like saying: Because exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport, they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss. Hence BF1 supports the only conclusion of the reasoning. BF2 is a result of the circumstance of BF1 but it is not an intermediate conclusion of the author. It is given as a supposed fact by the author. So option (B) is correct. Options (C) and (D) talk about intermediate conlcusions and hence they are right away eliminated. Option (A) is incorrect because it calls BF2 a conclusion. Option (E) is incorrect because the argument does not seek to explain the situation of BF1. It seeks to explain why the belief is mistaken. Here is a discussion on Boldface Questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY GMAT-Club-Forum-nb1w2jv1.png

SmileAndSolve · Answer

Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass a national park because they believe coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage. This belief is mistaken. Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport. Consequently, they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss.

Let's flag each sentence:
 1. Fact 1 -  Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass a national park because they believe coal dust blowing off the trains could cause significant environmental damage. 
 2. Conclusion -  This belief is mistaken. 
 3. Premise 1 -   Exporters have incentives to prevent a loss in the total weight of coal cargo during transport.
 4. Fact 2-  Consequently, they spray it with an environmentally safe sealant proven to reduce coal dust loss.

How to verify conclusion: it is dependent on another sentence(s) for support. 
Premise 1 is independent and hence it is not a conclusion. 
The last sentence is not a conclusion because while it needs Premise 1 to build flow, it doesn't need Premise 1 to support the fact.

pierjoejoe · Answer

the conclusion is "this belief is misleading". so any answer that says that one of the 2 senteces is the conclusion can be exluded. exclude A and D.

C tells that the second sentence functions as a support for the assertion made by the first sentence... strange because the second sentence is just stating what is normally done to prevent coal from blowing away. it does not support anything, just tells the results of what happens when companies try to avoid what is stated in the first statement.

E tells that the first statement is a situation that the coal exporter is trying to casually explain. the coal exporter is trying to explain that the environmentalist argouments are not correct and are misleading and NO other things.

B tells that the the first sentence is supporting the conclusion "the environmentalists are wrong", and the second is a result of what happens when they enforce what the coal exporter says in the first sentence.

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.

Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass

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

­Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass

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

Coal Exporter: Environmentalists oppose allowing coal trains to pass