Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older

Question

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes,  since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

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

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.

(C) The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.

(D) Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

Similar question from Official Guide 2018  :

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

The "content of the conclusion" is the same as the conclusion. For example, the content of an essay is what the essay contains. it is essentially the essay itself.

Then why do we say "content of the conclusion" and not simply "conclusion"?

Consider this:

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  For a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly  because the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

What is the bold portion here? It is the conclusion of the argument. This clause gives the author's opinion and is the reason he wrote the argument.

Now consider our original argument:

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly . The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

What is the conclusion here? 
The answer, clearly, is yes.

This clause gives you the author's opinion. But what is he saying yes to? If I ask you what the author's opinion is, will you say "he feels yes"?
No, you will say, "He feels that for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly." This is what he is trying to tell you. 
So the part in bold is the content of the conclusion but due to the way it is structured, we cannot call it the conclusion because the author doesn't himself say it.

Consider a dialogue:
A: Do you think  Anna will succeed ?
B: Yes

B's conclusion is that Anna will succeed. Hence the portion in bold is the content of B's conclusion even if B doesn't say it in as many words.

Vatsal7794

Amit0507 · Answer

As per ManhattanGMAT "the content of the conclusion of the argument" is the the  conclusion    itself; hence the statement is wrong. "E" clearly states that both the bold statements provide support to the conclusion: "YES"

buffdaddy · Answer

This BF question introduces some new terms
"Content of the conclusion" - Since the conclusion is a simple "YES", the content IMO is the question to which the answer is yes. This happens to be the non underlined part, So looking at the answer choices, lets eliminate A and B.

We can eliminate C because conclusion isn't underlined.

We can eliminate D because the underlined portions do not oppose the conclusion.

We are left with E, which seems fine.

WoundedTiger · Answer

What's wrong with A here....

You can boil down to option A and E and then is critical part...

Conclusion: Yes the new technologies use less fuel than older technologies as the electricity needed to run new technolgies is lesser than older technologies...

The statement 1 tells you a fact on the basis of which conclusion is reached... St 1 gives you the information which will help arrive at the conclusion not necessarily supporting the conclusion...

E is both supporting...how ??

vad3tha · Answer

Hi, I saw the question from OG GMAT 13th (CR #98)
The two bold face section are as followed:

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that  for a given level of output Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.  The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant.

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion
of the argument; the second provides support
for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of
the argument; the second identifies the content
of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument;
the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of
the argument; the second calls that conclusion
into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the
argument.

And OA is B

So what is the source of your question?

rnn · Answer

Hi,

I am not sure how the first statement is a support for the argument... I think that it is just a general fact statement. Kindly help. Thanks

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Yeah, good question. My take: the conclusion is "the answer is yes" which means you have to go find the question to *really* articulate the conclusion. So the conclusion is essentially:

for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly

Now, for that to be true, Delta has to have made a change in order for the former situation to be different from the present situation. And the first bolded portion gives us that change. So it's important information to support the conclusion: Delta's change is an integral part of the conclusion, not just mere background information (although I'd agree that it's close...I don't think they'd have (A) say that the first "provides important context for the conclusion" for example, because that's a little close for comfort. The first is important for the argument and not just throwaway background...it's at the very least important context to explain the conclusion. But that's not what any answer choices say)

egmat · Answer

Understanding the passage:

The passage speaks about Delta Products Inc. which recently switched from fossil fuel based old technologies to electricity based new ones. One could wonder whether their total fossil fuel usage lessened or not for a given constant output by using the new technology, but it did clearly lessen the usage since the fossil fuel to be burned to make enough electricity to run the new system is less than the fossil fuel burned to run the old system.

Conclusion:    
 For a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

Prethinking:

First boldface:  
 Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.   
Role: Provides context in line with the conclusion. Hence, we can say that it supports the conclusion.
Relationship to the other boldface: In the same direction

Second boldface:  
 since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant. 
Role: Provides reasoning to support the conclusion. 
Relationship to the other boldface: In the same direction.

Option Analysis

(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
  The first BF does not give the content of the conclusion of the argument. It only sets a context. Therefore it is meaningless to say the second provides support to "that" conclusion, even though it does provide support to the actual main conclusion.

(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
  The first does provide support for the conclusion of the argument. But the second boldface contains another point to support the conclusion. It does not contain the conclusion itself. "The content of the conclusion" is more or less the same thing as the conclusion. It can be expressed this way when the conclusion needs to be inferred from the passage.

(C) The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
  The first BF does not state anything that is opposed in the argument. The second BF only supports the conclusion; it does not state the conclusion.

(D) Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
  This option tells us that both BFs bring evidence that puts the conclusion in doubt. This means that the boldfaced statements oppose the conclusion, which is incorrect .

(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument. 
 Both statements do support the conclusion; hence there is no reason to invalidate this answer. Providing context that does not oppose the conclusion, like BF1, also counts as providing support. Therefore E is the correct answer.

Vatsal7794 · Answer

Hi Experts

When we say " The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument ; the second provides support for that conclusion."

What do we mean by the bold face part?

Is it saying like first bold face sentence in the conclusion of the argument?

avigutman · Answer

Vatsal7794  In this argument, the conclusion, technically, is this:  The answer, clearly, is yes 
But, without any additional context, that conclusion isn't very useful... The content is missing. The author claims that the answer is yes, but - the answer to  what  is yes??
Well, that missing content is the role of the first boldface.
Edited to add: this ^^ is the claim made by answer choice A (which is incorrect).

SnorLax_7 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray   KarishmaB   DmitryFarber

How can this piece of info which looks like a fact support the conclusion ? Does 'at least' have any role to play here ? implying author emphasis/tone that atleast they partly shifted, and thats why its a support. if not, then How this statement is a support ? and also What is the role of 'at least' then in that case ?

Kindly help

Thanks !

KarishmaB · Answer

A premise is a fact and that is what is used to support the conclusion.

Conclusion: F or a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly

Facts supporting this statement:

- Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.  
 - the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

The facts tell us why the author says that Delta now causes less pollution - because Delta has shifted to electricity (at least partly) and because production of electricity causes less pollution.

There isn't much role of at least. It just implies partial information. Say the author knows that of the 10 factories of Delta, 4 have switched to electricity and he doesn't know about the rest. So he says at least partially (it could be that Delta has shifted fully too but it is not known for sure).

JM007 · Answer

How is BF1 a premise supporting the conclusion? Isn't it just giving background information/ context for the argument?

bhanu29 · Answer

Hi,

Even though it could be considered as a background information, it’s actually a  necessary condition  for the argument to work. Even if the new technology consumes less fossil fuel, the conclusion only follows if we know that Delta Products has  actually switched, at least in part, to the new technology . Without that fact, the reduction in fossil fuel use wouldn’t logically apply to Delta’s operations.

SS3003 · Answer

How is BF1 providing support to the conclusion , when BF1 is simply just stating a fact or stating what has happened and setting up context for the whole arguement?

guddo · Answer

I believe this doubt has already been addressed in several posts above, but here it is again.

BF1 may look like mere context, but it is still  evidence  because it gives the change that makes the conclusion possible.

The conclusion is that Delta now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed. BF1 tells us Delta switched from fossil-fuel technology to electric technology. Without that fact, there is no basis for comparing old fossil-fuel use with new electricity-generated fossil-fuel use.

BF2 then completes the support by saying the new electricity requires less fossil fuel than the old technology did.

So BF1 is not the whole proof, but it is a necessary  starting premise  for the argument.

For more, please review the discussion above carefully.

egmat · Answer

Hi SS3003,

You've spotted exactly the right tension, and it's the same one rnn and JM007 raised earlier in the thread. Let me settle it directly.

The key idea:  a fact and a support are not opposites.  So calling BF1 "just a fact" doesn't disqualify it; the real question is whether the argument  uses  that fact to reach its conclusion. Here it does.

Look at what the conclusion actually claims:

for a given level of output,  Delta's  operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

Notice it's about  Delta  specifically, now versus before. The second boldface tells us that electricity-based tech burns less fuel than the old tech. But that general comparison only lands on  Delta  if Delta actually made the switch. That's precisely what BF1 supplies:

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies... to new technologies powered by electricity.

Strip BF1 out and the conclusion collapses - you'd have no reason the fuel comparison applies to Delta at all. So it isn't inert background; it's a  necessary link  the conclusion depends on. That's support.

A simpler stand-in to feel it:

"I spend less on fuel now than I used to, since electric cars use less energy than gas cars - and I recently switched to an electric car."

The clause "I recently switched to an electric car"  looks  like context, but pull it out and the conclusion about  my  spending has nothing to stand on. It's doing real work.

Therefore , E is right: both boldfaces feed the "yes" - one gives the change, the other gives the comparison.

Answer: E

RaahiK · Answer

The flow is:
Issue raised: Can we conclude X?
Author's answer: Yes.
Reason: Because Y.

The first boldface is: Delta Products has recently switched...

This is not the question. It's a fact that sets up the discussion and supports the author's "Yes."

The conclusion is actually: Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

The author explicitly endorses it by saying: "The answer, clearly, is yes."

Then the second boldface is the reason beginning with "since..."

Structure
Premise (1st bold): Delta switched to electric technology.
Issue: Does this mean less fossil fuel is consumed?
Conclusion: Yes, less fossil fuel is consumed.
Premise (2nd bold): Because generating the electricity uses less fossil fuel than the old technology.

So both boldface statements are premises supporting the conclusion, which is why E is correct.

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older

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

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older

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