Bunuel
A major donor to the Northbridge Research Institute has recently claimed that the institute is poorly managed, citing as evidence the institute’s failure to slow the submission of new project proposals in response to a sharp increase in the amount of unspent research funds. It is unclear whether public accusations by donors ever help institutions function better,
but in this case the accusation is plainly unwarranted. It is true that a growing balance of unspent funds often signals that research projects are stalled,
yet at Northbridge it suggests nothing of the kind. The rise in unspent funds is entirely due to large multiyear grants that have already been awarded to specific projects but are scheduled to be drawn down only in later phases of those projects.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first presents a consideration that the argument ultimately rejects; the second describes evidence that the argument uses to undermine that consideration.
(B) The first expresses the author’s overall conclusion; the second is a more specific conclusion drawn to help support that overall conclusion.
(C) The first states a claim made by someone the author disagrees with; the second summarizes the author’s main reason for rejecting that claim.
(D) The first introduces a general attitude toward outside criticism; the second presents a claim that the remainder of the argument attempts to refute.
(E) The first and second both report factual observations that the author uses as support for a further conclusion not stated explicitly.
Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
There is a North Bridge Research Institute (NBRI) , a major donor makes a claim : “ NRBI is poorly managed” .
The reason cited by the
donor was :
1) Slow submission of New project Proposal , and
2) Unspent Research funds have been high.
Now the
author makes a statement : It is unclear, if the public accusations made by the donor will be beneficial to the growth of NRBI. Whether , the public accusations will make the NRBI to grow in a positive manner is unclear.
But, the author makes a point clear : BF1 “
accusations are unwarranted”. This is an authors conclusion.
The next line mentions, the unspent research funds signal the projects had been slowed or stalled.
BF2:
Yet, “ at NBRI nothing of its kind”. This attacks the specifics, supporting the conclusion.
From this, we can be sure that
BF1 and BF2 are supporting each other. The next lines, are supporting the BF2.
A) Is wrong, because BF1 is not a consideration that is being rejected. BF1 is the authors conclusion. Secondly, BF2 is not in contradiction with BF1. But, it’s in line supporting BF1, not undermining it.
B) This is the correct answer. As the BF1 is the authors overall conclusion, the next BF2 is in exact line with the BF1, thus supporting it. Moreover, BF2 attacks the specifics of the claim.
C) This is wrong, as it claims the BF1 to be a statement made by some one else. Actually, BF1 is the main conclusion of the author. The second BF2, rejects that claim ( made in BF1). To be honest, BF2 supports then authors main conclusion (BF1) by providing supporting statements.
D) BF 1 is not an attitude but a clear concrete statement made by the author. Secondly, BF2 are supporting premises that are used to strengthen the main conclusion (BF1). Hence, wrong.
E) If it has been factual statements, the author could have used some clues to mention the authenticity or credibility of the data. But, the BF1 is a main conclusion of the author and BF2 is supporting the main conclusion, by directing specific statements. Hence, Wrong.
Option B