Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for

Question

The following is an excerpt from a campaign speech.

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increased taxes to fund programs that help the long-term unemployed of the state.  Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face.  Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy.  That, in turn, will result in greater prosperity and in more jobs, including jobs for those who have been unemployed for a while.  Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job.

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

A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.

B) The first is evidence supporting the main argument; the second is the main conclusion.

C) The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

E) The first is a conclusion drawn by Senator Baker's opponent; the second is Senator Baker's main conclusion.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

Matthyrou · Answer

hi everyone, i'll try my best to respond accuretly to this qu. Boldface's qu.=summarize each sentence of the text.
So we have first, a claim made by the oppenent in the wonder to solve l.t unemployement (so, opponent cl). Then, the other person is criticizing this claim(first bold face). Then, he is drawing another cl(main cl), opposing the first made by the opponent. Next sentences are describing why this cl is sounded (second boldface, notably). so this part is supporting the main cl.
After looking each answer, i came to choose d cause it was supporting my reasoning.
So, for me, it's d
I wish to everybody a wonderfull gmat day, see ya

oscarpiastri81 · Answer

Why I think it is A - conclusion is to lower tax for the benefit of longterm unemployed. First boldface states a prediction related to increasing tax which is contradicting the conclusion. The line between the two boldface lines states the support 1 for lowering taxes. Boldface 2 mentioned another supporting line which would be a consequence of lowering taxes. So it supports the main conclusion.

prantorboni · Answer

The following is an excerpt from a campaign speech.

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increased taxes to fund programs that help the long-term unemployed of the state.  Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face.  Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy.  That, in turn, will result in greater prosperity and in more jobs, including jobs for those who have been unemployed for a while.  Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job.

Rephrased: I ncreased taxes  would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face  . But , only through lowering taxes can stimulate the growth of small businesses and revitalize the state's whole economy.  That, in turn, will result in greater prosperity and in more jobs, including jobs for those who have been unemployed for a while.  Therefore, Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job.

So, to me lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job is the main conclusion.

Now, consider, A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion, which aligns with our thought.

Answer: A.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL SOLUTION

The first bold statement is a gloomy prediction about what would happen under the opponent's (Candidate Rothmore's) plan. The second bold statement is a prediction about what would follow from Senator Baker's own plan. Both are predictions: the speaker oppose the first and valorizes the second. Baker's main conclusion is in the final sentence, not part of the bold text.

The credited answer is (A): The first is a prediction about Rothmore's plan, which Baker opposes. The second cited as a consequence of Baker's own plan, which in turn supports the main conclusion.

(B) is wrong: neither of the boldface sections could be called evidence.

(C) is wrong because the first bold statement does not support the main conclusion in any way. Also, the second bold statement, by itself, is not the main conclusion.

(D) is wrong because the first bold statement is not an objection.

(E) is tricky: technically, the first bold statement is probably not what Rothmore would conclude on his own. It's how Baker is characterizing (probably mischaracterizing) Rothmore's position. Opposing political candidates rare present each other's positions in a totally objected and even-handed manner. Also, the second bold statement, by itself, is not the main conclusion.

pierjoejoe · Answer

the conclusion of the argument is that lowering the taxes is good for the economy.
the argument is opposing the increase of taxes.
the first statement is describing what would happen if they increase taxes. the second statement is just a "intermediate" conclusion that supports the main conclusion

(A) fits perfectly the description above.
(B) the first phrase is NOT evidence supporting the main argument. the main argument is that lowering the taxes is good. The second phrase is not the conclusion, but more of an intermediate conclusion.
(C) The first is a prediction that if accurate would GO COMPLEATELY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGOUENT. The second phrase is not the main conclusion.
(D) This is a good one... but i don't see the first phrase as a objection, it is just describing what would happen if they increase taxes.
(E) the first phrase is not a conclusion

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Since there are not much explanation available, I am trying to do my contribution

BF1- Senators View on Opponent recommendation. This is in line with main conclusion

BF2- Senators view on his recommendation

Since these both seems like a conclusion but these are not main conclusion. Main conclusion is the last line of this argument "Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job"

Now this analysis lets evaluate option choices

A BF1 yes an objection, BF2 yes that is the intermediate conclusion supporting MC keep it

B BF1 is not evidence neither BF2 is MC eliminate

C BF2 is not MC eliminate

D BF1 is not rejected eliminate

E both incorrect eliminate

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for

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

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for

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