To be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club, one

Question

7. To be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club, one must have a net worth of over ten million dollars and must not have any connections to the entertainment industry.  Robert Chase, the publishing magnate, has a net worth of 5 billion dollars and chase has not financed any Hollywood movies , so  he must be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club. 

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is the part of evidence in support of this argument; the second is the conclusion that could not be drawn from all evidence that the argument contains.

(B) The first is the first-evidence that supports this argument; the second is the mainpoint that must be drawn from all evidence that the argument includes.

(C) The first is the one fact of two that argument includes; the second is the conclusion that could be drawn from this passage.

(D) The first is the background that is necessary for this argument; the second is the conclusion that is not drawn only from the first.

(E) The first is the cause that the argument includes; the second is the effect that can be drawn only from this cause.

Paul · Answer

I had a hard time choosing between B and C but I'll pick C
In B, I don't like the fact that the first bold-face is "the first evidence". Also, the second boldface is more like a conclusion from the passage, not the "mainpoint". The first boldface, along with the first sentence, must each be facts that make it that you can conclude the second BF.

kok72 · Answer

I'd like to vote for A.

"must not have any connections to the entertainment industry" =/= "chase has not financed any Hollywood movies"

Hollywood movies cannot cover the entertainment industy.
The conclusion is based on weak examples.

EileenWang · Answer

I'll vote for (C)

(C) is true since the first sentence has the one fact of two that argument includes, while the other statement is not against the second primise. Therefore, the conclusion could be drawn.

mallelac · Answer

I am going ahead with A.
The conclusion drawn from the two evidences given in the first two sentences, has some loop-holes. Does no connection to the entertainment industry mean 'not fiancing hollywood movies' alone? He may have some friends in the Hollywood. So, I go for A.

rahul · Answer

Sorry folks i don't have the OA for this question . 

i chose A

twixt · Answer

I choose C for the same reason as Paul. The second bold sentence looks more like a conclusion than a mainpoint.

scoobee · Answer

C. 1st bf is more like specific/qualified evidence and the 2nd bf the conclusion.
A contradicts the drawn conclusion.

chin_min · Answer

My choice is A 

the first BF provides an evidence which supports the argument 

however, the conclusion drawn in second BF cannot be absolutely true 
becoz, not financing hollywood movies does not mean that Chase doesnt have any connections to the entertainment industry

chin_min · Answer

My choice is A 

the first BF provides an evidence which supports the argument 

however, the conclusion drawn in second BF cannot be absolutely true 
becoz, not financing hollywood movies does not mean that Chase doesnt have any connections to the entertainment industry

transyt · Answer

Was wavering between A and D, but will will pick A...

nzgmat · Answer

I'm taking C, the second seems more like a conclusion drawn from the facts presented.

sdanquah · Answer

I would pick A for the following reasons. First the conclusion that Robert chase must be admitted into the club cannot be drawn from the evidence given. The evidence given in this argument is that for somebody to be admitted into the club, the person must possess two things, one must have a net worth of over ten million dollars and must not have any connections to the entertainment industry. It certainly does not lead us to conclude that anybody who meet this conclusion has to be admitted. 

Secondly the first boldfaced is a statement uopn which the author stands to draw an invalid conclusion and it is thus serve as an evidence.

thus A is the possible answer to this question.

batliwala · Answer

I will go for A.

Robert meets the first condition of 10 million dollars, but may not be meet the second requirement (he may have other connections in entertainment industry apart from not financing any hollywood movies).

so he must be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club. 

is a conclusion which may not be drawn from the given evidences the argument contains.

praveen_rao7 · Answer

I am leaning towards A as well?. What do you guys say?. HongHu? Paul?

HongHu · Answer

Principle: To be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club, one must have a net worth of over ten million dollars and must not have any connections to the entertainment industry. 
Fact/evidence:  Robert Chase, the publishing magnate, has a net worth of 5 billion dollars and chase has not financed any Hollywood movies , 
Conclusion: so  he must be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club. 

This question is a little strange because it kind of combines two type of questions into one. The first type question is to find the roles of BFs, the second type is to determine whether the conclusion can be drawn from the evidences and premises.

(A) The first is the part of evidence in support of this argument; the second is the conclusion that could not be drawn from all evidence that the argument contains.
The first BF is obviously the evidence and the second BF is obviously the conclusion. Since not financing Hollywood movies doesn't mean not have any other connections to the entertainment industry, so the conclusion is one that cannot be drawn from the evidence.
Correct answer.

(B) The first is the first-evidence that supports this argument; the second is the mainpoint that must be drawn from all evidence that the argument includes.
First, the second BF cannot be drawn from the evidences. Second, what does "first-evidence" mean here? Does it imply there's another evidence? Obviously there aren't any more evidences.

(C) The first is the one fact of two that argument includes; the second is the conclusion that could be drawn from this passage.
Again, first conclusion cannot be drawn. Second there isn't a one of two facts.

(D) The first is the background that is necessary for this argument; the second is the conclusion that is not drawn only from the first.
The main thing is that first BF is not simply the background. The word "only" also does not sound right.

(E) The first is the cause that the argument includes; the second is the effect that can be drawn only from this cause.
Well it's not exactly cause and effect, especially when you can't draw the conclusion from the evidence.

(A)

praveen_rao7 · Answer

thanks for such a quick response HongHu

To be accepted as a member at the Brown Country Club, one

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