Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasi

Question

Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasing shares in their own bank.  This activity has occasioned some surprise, since it is widely believed that the bank, carrying a large number of bad loans, is on the brink of collapse. Since the executives are well placed to know their bank's true condition, it might seem that their share purchases show that the danger of collapse is exaggerated. However, the available information about the bank's condition is from reliable and informed sources, and corporate executives do sometimes buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to calm worries about their company's condition.  On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example.

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

A. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.

B. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue the argument addresses; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument.

C. The first provides evidence to defend the position that the argument seeks to establish against opposing positions; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.

D. The first provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the argumentâ€TMs main conclusion.

E. Each provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish.

Paul · Accepted Answer

Principle : something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a  fact  which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

 Fact : something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

 Evidence : what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are  direct  elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

 Pre-evidence : This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

 Background : Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

 Consideration : Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

 Premise : This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

 Assumption : Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

 Conclusion : Self-explanatory

 Inference : Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably  infer  that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot  conclude  that he got 340+. See the nuance?

Feel free to disagree or add your thoughts to what I said. Some of these have very subtle differences though and in some cases, can even be interchanged.

anothermillenial · Answer

Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasing shares in their own bank.  This activity has occasioned some surprise, since it is widely believed that the bank, carrying a large number of bad loans, is on the brink of collapse.   Since the executives are well placed to know their bank's true condition,   it might seem that their share purchases show that the danger of collapse is exaggerated.   However, the available information about the bank's condition is from reliable and informed sources, and corporate executives do sometimes buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to calm worries about their company's condition.    On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example.

Step 1: Briefly summarise and label blocks.

Background:  Bank’s top executives buying shares of own bank.
 Premise: Surprising activity. Bank expected to collapse. 
 Counter-conclusion: Executives know the truth, so danger is exaggerated. 
 Premise: Info is reliable and executives do buy shares to calm public. 
 Conclusion: Executives are likely calming public!

Step 2: Pre-phrase.

We are looking for an answer choice that relays the following format: Premise, Conclusion. The answer choice should also note that the premise does not support the main conclusion but is more like a provider of context.

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

A. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. 
 Hmmm, I suppose we could take the first sentence as a “circumstance”…and the explanation (“it might seem that their share purchases show that the danger of collapse is exaggerated”) is an issue that the argument disagrees with. I can see how (A) works. Let’s move on to check the others.

B. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue the argument addresses; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument. 
 The circumstance is definitely not “the issue that argument addresses”. The “issue” is the part where we’re trying to decipher to true motives of the bank executives. The second IS the main conclusion, so the second half is definitely wrong.

C. The first provides evidence to defend the position that the argument seeks to establish against opposing positions; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. 
 The first DOES provide evidence but is it defending a position? No, it seems pretty dang neutral to me.

D. The first provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the argument’s main conclusion. 
 No, the second is the main conclusion! How can it support itself?

E. Each provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish.
 Definitely incorrect. The second part is the main conclusion (“therefore, it is…”), so it can’t evidence.

ywilfred · Answer

A. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. 
- A should be the answer. It describes a circumstance (executive buying share) of which the issue that the argument addresses (issue is why executives buy shares from a flailing bank). The second states the main conclusion (executives do so to calm worries about their companyâ€™s condition.)

B. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue the argument addresses; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument. 
- Second is the conclusion, and is in fact the main conclusion. B is out.

C. The first provides evidence to defend the position that the argument seeks to establish against opposing positions; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. 
- Out. First doesn't provide evidence of any sort. The first sentence is a fact. (a reality)

D. The first provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the argumentâ€™s main conclusion. 
- Out.

E. Each provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish
- Out.

A it is.

netcaesar · Answer

A.

The main reason is that the first paragraph is an explanation. Here there is the evidence that support the conclusion that is stated in the second paragraph.

There is any other evidence, so the best answer must be A.

believerinthy · Answer

"On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example."

I can infer how this can be the main conclusion, but since it is not stated specifically do you still consider this as the main conclusion and not drawing to the main conclusion?
Is this a common phenomenon in gmat?

Kritika16 · Answer

"On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example."

I can infer how this can be the main conclusion, but since it is not stated specifically do you still consider this as the main conclusion and not drawing to the main conclusion?
Is this a common phenomenon in gmat?

KarishmaB · Answer

I am not sure what you mean by "since it is not stated specifically."
This is the main conclusion of the argument; this is what the author wanted to say all along. It is the author's opinion and it has that telltale keyword 'therefore.' There is no doubt that it is the main conclusion of the argument.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

That statement is stated specifically. You're quoting it from where it's stated!

What, exactly, are you saying  isn't  stated?

Raman109 · Answer

Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasing shares in their own bank. - Fact 
This activity has occasioned some surprise, since it is widely believed that the bank, carrying a large number of bad loans, is on the brink of collapse. - Fact
Since the executives are well placed to know their bank's true condition (Fact), it might seem that their share purchases show that the danger of collapse is exaggerated. (Intermediate conclusion) 
However, the available information about the bank's condition is from reliable and informed sources, and corporate executives do sometimes buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to calm worries about their company's condition. - Fact 
On balance, therefore, it is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example. - Main conclusion

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

A. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses (ok); the second states the main conclusion of the argument. (ok)

B. The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue the argument addresses (ok); the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument. (No. the second is the main conclusion)

C. The first provides evidence to defend the position that the argument seeks to establish against opposing positions (No the first supports the intermediate conclusion but not the main conclusion); the second states the main conclusion of the argument. (Ok)

D. The first provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish (No. it supports the intermediate conclusion); the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the argumentâ€™s main conclusion. (No. its the main conclusion)

E. Each provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish. (No)

KarishmaB · Answer

Situation: Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasing shares in their own bank. Reaction to the situation: This is surprising because it is widely believed that the bank, carrying a large number of bad loans, is on the brink of collapse. Since the executives are well placed to know their bank's true condition, it might seem that their share purchases show that the danger of collapse is exaggerated. Consideration against the reaction: However, the available information about the bank's condition is from reliable and informed sources Executives do sometimes buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to calm worries about their company's condition. Conclusion: It is likely that the executives of the bank are following this example. Let's jump on to the options directly. (A) The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. Correct. The first is a surprising circumstance that the argument addresses (the reaction it is getting and what needs to be considered in light of it). The second is the main conclusion of the argument. (B) The first describes the circumstance the explanation of which is the issue the argument addresses; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument. The second is the main conclusion of the argument, not an intermediate conclusion. The explanation that the author gives of the circumstance is that the executives purchasing bank shares is a calculated attempt to allay fears. This is the author’s opinion. It is the main conclusion. (C) The first provides evidence to defend the position that the argument seeks to establish against opposing positions; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. The first is not evidence to defend the position the argument seeks to establish. It is a situation that the argument seeks to discuss. (D) The first provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish; the second states a conclusion that is drawn in order to support the argument’s main conclusion. Again, the first is not evidence to defend the position the argument seeks to establish. It is a situation that the argument seeks to discuss. The second is the main conclusion. (E) Each provides evidence to support the position that the argument seeks to establish. Incorrect as discussed above. Answer (A) Discussion on Boldface Questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasi

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Several of a certain bank's top executives have recently been purchasi

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