It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 13:11

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Wharton R1 | Stanford R1 | Tuck R1 | Ross R1 | Haas R1 | UCLA R1

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# United Energy recently invested in a series of large

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 12 [1], given: 3

United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2011, 03:43
1
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:53) correct 40% (02:10) wrong based on 720 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.

[Reveal] 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: Doubt
I am confused can anyone how to solve bold face cr questions
can bold face questions have 2 conclusions:
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 12 [1], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 388

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 161

Re: How to solve bold face CR questions ? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2011, 08:52
yuvrajpratap,

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

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 161

Manager
Status: Head Turner ! am I ?
Affiliations: RHCE , CCNA, MCSE and Now GMAT ;)
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 138

Kudos [?]: 205 [1], given: 28

Location: India
WE: Operations (Computer Hardware)
Re: How to solve bold face CR questions ? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2011, 09:06
1
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 205 [1], given: 28

Manager
Joined: 03 Mar 2011
Posts: 88

Kudos [?]: 169 [2], given: 12

Location: United States
Schools: Erasmus (S)
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V37
GPA: 3.9
Re: CR- United Energy foregoing drilling [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2011, 07:33
2
KUDOS
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!

Kudos [?]: 169 [2], given: 12

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 42

Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V37
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: CR- United Energy foregoing drilling [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2011, 09:46
C

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 42

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 189

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 51

GPA: 3.5
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2012, 20:56
C it is.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 51

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3422

Kudos [?]: 9510 [4], given: 1203

United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 12:43
4
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9510 [4], given: 1203

Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

GMAT Date: 11-10-2012
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 15:58
plese provide OA...with explanation

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3422

Kudos [?]: 9510 [0], given: 1203

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 16:03
sudhirroninsingh wrote:
plese provide OA...with explanation

try to solve
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9510 [0], given: 1203

Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 20 [1], given: 57

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 20:47
1
KUDOS

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.

Kudos [?]: 20 [1], given: 57

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 3608 [3], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 23:04
3
KUDOS
(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.

Kudos [?]: 3608 [3], given: 123

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 117 [5], given: 3

GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 03:56
5
KUDOS
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.

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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 117 [5], given: 3

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3422

Kudos [?]: 9510 [0], given: 1203

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 09:32
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
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.

_________________

Kudos [?]: 9510 [0], given: 1203

Director
Status: Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 599

Kudos [?]: 649 [0], given: 298

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

31 Oct 2013, 03:28
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

Kudos [?]: 649 [0], given: 298

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 556

Kudos [?]: 998 [1], given: 321

GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2013, 00:24
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Bumping for review and further discussion

_________________

General Mistakes to Avoid on the GMAT
TOP 10 articles on Time Management on the GMAT
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

Rules for posting on the verbal forum

Kudos [?]: 998 [1], given: 321

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10203

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2015, 00:16
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4737

Kudos [?]: 18087 [0], given: 1992

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

20 Mar 2015, 23:06
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 18087 [0], given: 1992

Director
Joined: 21 May 2013
Posts: 556

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 506

Re: Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2015, 02:02
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.....

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 506

Chat Moderator
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 685

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 537

Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2015, 11:16
I think the right answer is C. Wait for OA.
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 537

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4737

Kudos [?]: 18087 [0], given: 1992

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

29 Mar 2015, 19:04
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
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 18087 [0], given: 1992

Re: Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series   [#permalink] 29 Mar 2015, 19:04

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 31 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by