GMATYoda
I agree that Hogan’s actions resulted in grievous injury to Winters. And I do not deny that Hogan fully realized the nature of his actions and the effects that they would have. Indeed, I would not disagree if you pointed out that intentionally causing such effects is reprehensible, other things being equal. But in asking you to concur with me that Hogan’s actions not be wholly condemned I emphasize again that Hogan mistakenly believed Winters to be the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument?
A. Hogan should not be considered responsible for the injuries sustained by Winters.
B. The robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings should be considered to be as responsible for Winters’s injuries as Hogan.
C. The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters are not completely blameworthy.
D. Hogan thought that Winters was the person who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the last few months.
E. The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters were reprehensible, other things being equal.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The conclusion of this argument is difficult to identify because the author does not use a traditional conclusion indicator. The first three sentences are admissions by the author regarding the nature of Hogan’s actions. The fourth sentence contains the conclusion and a premise, and the conclusion is that “Hogan’s actions should not be wholly condemned.” If you struggled to identify the conclusion, consider how you might have applied the Conclusion Identification Methodology to the pieces of the argument. For example, consider the two parts of the last sentence. If you thought one of them might be the conclusion, place one as the conclusion and the other as a premise, as follows: “Because I ask that Hogan’s actions not be wholly condemned, therefore I emphasize again that Hogan mistakenly believed Winters to be the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months.” Does that configuration sound right? No. Try again by reversing the premise and conclusion pieces: “Because Hogan mistakenly believed Winters to be the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months, therefore I ask you to concur with me that Hogan’s actions not be wholly condemned.” The relationship now sounds much more logical.
Answer choice (A): The author admits that Hogan fully realized his actions and the author asks that “Hogan’s actions not be wholly condemned.” Both of these statements are counter to the idea that Hogan should not be considered responsible for Winter’s injuries.
Answer choice (B): The only reference to the robber is that Hogan mistakenly believed that Winters was the robber. Thus, there is no evidence in the stimulus to support this answer.
Answer choice (C): This correct answer is a paraphrase of the conclusion of the argument. Answer choice (D): According to the information in the stimulus, this answer must be true. Regardless, the answer is still incorrect because it fails to summarize the author’s main point. This type of answer—one that is true but misses the main point—is frequently featured as an incorrect answer in Main Point questions.
Answer choice (E): Like answer choice (D), this statement is true according to the stimulus. But, it is incorrect because it does not capture the main point.