GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Jul 2018, 00:46

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

United Energy recently invested in a series of large

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 18
United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2011, 04:43
2
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:52) correct 36% (02:10) wrong based on 809 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.
(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.

Spoiler: :: OE
solution:
The argument concludes that United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with reaching its financial goals. However, this conclusion must be distinguished from the assertion of the environmentalists described in the question - that the actions taken by United Energy indicate that the company is putting environmental concerns ahead of financial returns. The answer choices may consider either the author's conclusion (which is considered the overall conclusion) or the conclusion asserted by the environmentalists (which is considered the opposing opinion).

This is an Analyze the Argument Structure question. The best approach is to consider each boldface in turn.

(A) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion that United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals; the second does not call the conclusion into question as much as state its opposite.

(B) The first boldface does not state the conclusion of the argument; the second boldface does not support the conclusion of the main argument, which is that United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.

(C) CORRECT. The first boldface supports the environmentalists’ conclusion that United Energy is acting in a manner that places environmental impact ahead of financial returns. The second boldface states this conclusion.

(D) The first boldface is a relationship that does support the environmentalists' conclusion; however, the second states this conclusion, and does not undermine it.

(E) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion, which is that United Energy may be acting in its financial interest; the second boldface also does not support this conclusion.
Spoiler: :: Doubt
I am confused can anyone how to solve bold face cr questions
Please suggest me a correct strategy ... any link from where I can read more
can bold face questions have 2 conclusions:
Most Helpful Community Reply
4 KUDOS received
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3437
United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2013, 13:43
4
5
United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.
(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 353
WE 1: Business Development
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: How to solve bold face CR questions ? [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2011, 09:52
yuvrajpratap,

How can we help you if you do not bold the sentences?
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Head Turner ! am I ?
Affiliations: RHCE , CCNA, MCSE and Now GMAT ;)
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 133
Location: India
WE: Operations (Computer Hardware)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: How to solve bold face CR questions ? [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2011, 10:06
1
Hey Yuvraj,

try e-gmat.com free CR preview. It has a section on Bold Face and 10 practice problems. See if it helps.
_________________

_______________________________________________
Am i worth a Kudo ? Life's around GMAT for the Moment

4 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Mar 2011
Posts: 88
Location: United States
Schools: Erasmus (S)
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V37
GPA: 3.9
Re: CR- United Energy foregoing drilling [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Oct 2011, 08:33
4
Obviously, there are two sides of opinion in this question. One side (enviromntalist's) is that enviromental issues are more important for the company than financial one. This is the conclusion which enviromentalists make from the fact that the company does not drill oil wells (and this is exactly the second boldfaced statement). And this conclusion is based on the premises that the company could extract high profits from the project, which is provided in the first boldfaced statement. Another side (expert's) is that the company does not drill not because of environment issues but because of real financial issues which is connected with forecasts about negative profitability of such projects in the long-term. And this conclusion is really the conclusion of the argument.

So, the right answer is (C)

Perhaps you could use the strategy of "elimination" which is provided in Manhattan GMAT Prep. We find that the first boldface stuff is premises and the second stuff is concusion.
(B) and (D) tells that the first statement is a conclusion, so we eliminate them.
(A) and (E) tell that the second boldface stuff is the "premise" which supports the conclusion or calls it into question, so they are also wrong.
So, the only right answer is (C)

Finally, I could say that there are rather a lot of questions with two opposite side of view in "Determine the role of Boldface" type of questions. Frequently this sides fugurate as conclusions. So you should drill solving these questions.
_________________

If my post is useful for you not be ashamed to KUDO me!
Let kudo each other!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 4
GMAT Date: 11-10-2012
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2013, 16:58
plese provide OA...with explanation
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3437
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2013, 17:03
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 102
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2013, 21:47
1
Is the answer C? :shock:

greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.

I think the second boldface is what the environmentalists concluded from the situation. The first boldface supports this because it says United Energy could have earned more profits.

(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. -> Not true.
(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion. -> The first is not the conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion. -> Yes
(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion. -> This is reverse of C.
(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument. -> Not true. The argument ends with a question mark over the motivation behind not pursuing the drilling of oil wells.
3 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1076
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 00:04
3
(1) Fact: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area. Even though, greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells
(2) Environmentalist's conclusion: United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
(3) Author's conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals

Author's conclusion is KEY. It is the main conclusion of the argument. It states that UE acts for profit not for environment as Environmentalists thought.
Because UE used to drill oil wells in the past because greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. That clearly supports the main conclusion.
The second bold part, however, maintains that UE acts for environment, not for profit. That calls the main conclusion into question.

I will go for A.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

6 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 42
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 04:56
6
Analysis of passage
1. United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment.
2. United Energy has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.
3. Environmentalist’s conclusion: By foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
4. Author’s conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals as oil wells are not profitable in long term in the area.
Pre thinking:

Author’s conclusion (which is also conclusion of the argument) : United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.
Author’s support to his conclusion: To support his conclusion author is citing recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity which some experts believe will affect the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

Environmentalist conclusion: United Energy places environmental impact over financial returns
Environmentalist support to his conclusion: Environmentalist is supporting his conclusion by citing the fact that united energy has opted for windmills instead of drilling oil wells although greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.


So the first bold is definitely not conclusion of the argument and nor is it supporting the conclusion of the argument. It is actually supporting the environmentalist conclusion as stated in pre thinking above. The second bold face is the environmentalist conclusion.

Hence C is the answer

Note that it is important to segregate between Author's and Environmentalist conclusion in this question and once that is done it becomes easier to relate between conclusion and supporting reasons.
Hope this Helps.
_________________

The Kudo please :)

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3437
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 10:32
OE

Quote:
The argument concludes that United Energy may be acting in a manner
consistent with reaching its financial goals. However, this conclusion must be
distinguished from the assertion of the environmentalists described in the
question - that the actions taken by United Energy indicate that the company is
putting environmental concerns ahead of financial returns. The answer choices
may consider either the author's conclusion (which is considered the overall
conclusion) or the conclusion asserted by the environmentalists (which is
considered the opposing opinion).

This is an Analyze the Argument Structure question. The best approach is to
consider each boldface in turn.

(A) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion that United
Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals; the second
does not call the conclusion into question as much as state its opposite.
(B) The first boldface does not state the conclusion of the argument; the second
boldface does not support the conclusion of the main argument, which is that
United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.
(C) CORRECT. The first boldface supports the environmentalists’ conclusion that
United Energy is acting in a manner that places environmental impact ahead of
financial returns. The second boldface states this conclusion.
(D) The first boldface is a relationship that does support the environmentalists'
conclusion; however, the second states this conclusion, and does not undermine
it.
(E) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion, which is that
United Energy may be acting in its financial interest; the second boldface also
does not support this conclusion.

_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 540
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q51 V41
GMAT 3: 790 Q51 V49
GPA: 3.3
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2013, 04:28
pqhai wrote:
(1) Fact: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area. Even though, greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells
(2) Environmentalist's conclusion: United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
(3) Author's conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals

Author's conclusion is KEY. It is the main conclusion of the argument. It states that UE acts for profit not for environment as Environmentalists thought.
Because UE used to drill oil wells in the past because greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. That clearly supports the main conclusion.
The second bold part, however, maintains that UE acts for environment, not for profit. That calls the main conclusion into question.

I will go for A.



I could easily eliminate A B and E, stuck between C and E.
_________________

Like my post Send me a Kudos :) It is a Good manner.
My Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-score-750-and-750-i-moved-from-710-to-189016.html

1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 524
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2013, 01:24
1
Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5128
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 00:06
This question is part of the GMAT Club Critical Reasoning: Boldface Revision Project.

United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.

B. The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.

C. The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.

D. The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.

E. The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.
_________________

Have an MBA application Question? ASK ME ANYTHING!

My Stuff: Four Years to 760 | MBA Trends for Indian Applicants

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 21 May 2013
Posts: 651
Re: Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 03:02
souvik101990 wrote:
This question is part of the GMAT Club Critical Reasoning: Boldface Revision Project.

United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.

B. The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.

C. The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.

D. The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.

E. The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.


+1 for C. First supports the ENV conclusion, second states that conclusion. Main conclusion of the argument is given in the line 'However.....
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 651
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 12:16
I think the right answer is C. Wait for OA.
_________________

If my post was helpful, press Kudos. If not, then just press Kudos !!!

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5128
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2015, 20:04
The argument concludes that United Energy may be acting in a manner
consistent with reaching its financial goals. However, this conclusion must be
distinguished from the assertion of the environmentalists described in the
question - that the actions taken by United Energy indicate that the company is
putting environmental concerns ahead of financial returns. The answer choices
may consider either the author's conclusion (which is considered the overall
conclusion) or the conclusion asserted by the environmentalists (which is
considered the opposing opinion).
This is an Analyze the Argument Structure question. The best approach is to
consider each boldface in turn.

(A) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion that United
Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals; the second
does not call the conclusion into question as much as state its opposite.

(B) The first boldface does not state the conclusion of the argument; the second
boldface does not support the conclusion of the main argument, which is that
United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.

(C) CORRECT. The first boldface supports the environmentalists’ conclusion that
United Energy is acting in a manner that places environmental impact ahead of
financial returns. The second boldface states this conclusion.

(D) The first boldface is a relationship that does support the environmentalists'
conclusion; however, the second states this conclusion, and does not undermine
it.

(E) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion, which is that
United Energy may be acting in its financial interest; the second boldface also
does not support this conclusion.
_________________

Have an MBA application Question? ASK ME ANYTHING!

My Stuff: Four Years to 760 | MBA Trends for Indian Applicants

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2724
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2015, 15:16
yuvrajpratap wrote:
United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.


C for me too.

the conclusion is: UE may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.
the conclusion of the environmentalist is: UE places environmental impact over financial returns.

first one is a fact, and can be used as a premise for the conclusion of the environmentalist.

(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
no, the first one does not support the conclusion of the argument. furthermore, the second does not call the conclusion into question; it is an intermediate conclusion.

(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
no, the first one is a fact, it is not a conclusion. the second one is an intermediate conclusion, and it does not support the main conclusion.

(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
looks good.

(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.
the functions should be vice versa. let's see why:
UE envir>$, therefore greater revenues could be generated from oil wells. doesn't make sense.
now, let's try the correct way: greater revenues could be generated from oil wells. since UE uses windmills, UE established that it places EI over fin. returns. - now this looks better.

(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.
no, the first is a general fact, and it does not support the conclusion. the second as well does not support the conclusion.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 51
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2016, 04:39
The first is a fact (evidence) that supports the second claim (conclusion).
Choice C is correct.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 51
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2016, 03:13
The first is a fact (finding, evidence) ; A - C – E
The second is claim (conclusion) – C
Đáp án C.
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large   [#permalink] 05 Feb 2016, 03:13

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

United Energy recently invested in a series of large

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.