Wider use of central counterparties (CCPs)

Can a conclusion start with - However? (as per buks, its a premise indicator)

I had a doubt between B and E.
I chose E.
By looking at this >>> has the potential to improve
I thought it is something which author is expecting to be true rather a fact.
If the statement would have been..
Wider use of central counterparties (CCPs) for over-the-counter derivatives improve market resilience...
I would straight away mark B

I always get confused at such level. How do you identify if a statement is a fact/inference/judgemnt/author's claim etc

How can "has the potential to improve market resilience" be a fact? It sounds more like judgement or belief. No?

I don't understand how the first one is a conclusion... It def seems like a claim.

Hi Mohnish

It is not a conclusion. It is a "fact". As per the author, By using CCP you achieve X. ( Proven Fact ). In the 2nd sentence, the author has some sort of background research to conclude that statement 1 is not just sufficient to achieve X.

Cheers
Qoofi

Confused between B and D.
Wider use of central counterparties (CCPs) for over-the-counter derivatives has the potential to improve market resilience by lowering counterparty risk and increasing transparency. However, CCPs alone are not sufficient to ensure the resilience and efficiency of derivatives markets.

Which of the following aptly describes the roles played by each of the two bold faced statements in the passage above?

A. The first is a belief; the second one is a conclusion in line with the belief.
B. The first is a fact; the second is a conclusion disputing the fact. I am not sure if the second point is disputing. You dispute in case of a controversy, a negation or anything that does not support a particular scenario. The second point is just an added piece of information of CCPs. Had the first statement said that CCPs improve market resilience, it definitely would have disputed.
C. The first is a conclusion; the second is a fact opposing the conclusion
D. First is a data point; the second is a conclusion from that data point. In fact the second is a conclusion from the data point, meaning, although CCP's have the potential to improve market resilience, they can't do that alone.
E. the first is a claim by the author; the second is a doubt expressed by the author.

Please confirm if there's a mistake in the understanding.

I highly doubt the answer. If anything , IMO , A and D seem plausible.

The first one is a belief/data point . And the second is not necessarily refuting the first . It is in line with first . It just says , Statement 1 being true , is not by itself sufficient ( rather , there is more to it). It doesn't say statement 1 is not true.It just adds to statement 1. Doesn't disagree with it .

Could you please let us know the source of this ?

I am having doubts about this.
Can anyone say what to source is?
"Has the potential" -> can not be a fact.
This mall has the potential to be the most successful in all the state.... is this a fact?

Good question.I was able to find the correct answer!!

This is how I approached it:
A. The first is a belief; the second one is a conclusion in line with the belief.- Its clearly not a belief.
B. The first is a fact; the second is a conclusion disputing the fact
C. The first is a conclusion; the second is a fact opposing the conclusion
D. First is a data point; the second is a conclusion from that data point- second is not a conclusion from the first
E. the first is a claim by the author; the second is a doubt expressed by the author.- second part is not a doubt expressed by author

Analysing B and C.. First part looks more liek a fact.. so selected B..
Please sugget if it can be approached in a better way

Went with A..
How could 'has the potential to improve market resilience' be a fact. This looks like a belief. Can someone please elaborate on this?

I hope 2nd Boldface is not refuting, opposing, disputing or doubting the 1st in any way.. The 1st is saying that it has the potential, 2nd states that it alone is not sufficient.. doesnt mean opposing but going together.. because 2nd is accepting what 1st states, but adds a new info...

I agree... I don't think the second "disputes" the first at all. I went with D, which was incorrect....

Why E is not the correct option?Any expert advice would be appreciated

Dear Amit,

I think the question is flawed and suggest you to try official bold face questions.

OA (B) is incorrect here.

First Bold Face: CCPs has the potential to improve market resilience by lowering counterparty risk and increasing transparency.

Second Bold Face: .......However, CCPs alone are not sufficient to ensure.......

See here second bold face is not disputing the fact presented in bold face 01. Second Bold face mentions "CCPs alone not sufficient". That means CCPs are indeed has the potential to improve market resilience when used with other options. This does not dispute the bold face 01.

Hope it helps!!

Can the experts please correct this question? Thanks!