Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that, for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
i understood and "clearly answer is yes" is a conclusion and 2nd bold face is part of the conclusion but how come the first boldface support the conclusion.Its just presenting a fact that delta products switch it does not support that this switch saved fuel consumption.its like a background and not a premise
thankyou
delta products CR..confusion
This topic has expert replies
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
no the answer given in the solution is B
In love with "beatthegmat",I do not need any coaching I get all my doubt solved here on this 1 place... thanks to all the experts!!
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity.(premise 1 ) therefore for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.Java_85 wrote:In my opinion C is the right answer.
First sentence is the result or conclusion while the second sentence is questioning it!
amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant.
and (first boldface) delta has switched to new technologies therefore for a given level of output, Delta's operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly
now these 2 makes sense...doesnt it!! i am answering my own question...i hope its clear
answer is B the first and last sentence together allow us to concluded the 2nd statement.
new tech require less fuel than old -> there fore less fuel will be consumed for whuever switches it doesnt fully say that delta's operation caused less fuel consumption as premise doesnt talk about delta adopting the technique
delta has switched from old to new technology->cannot alone conclude this is any good for reducing fuel wastage
however when 2 things combined they do lead to supporting our conclusion that deltas operation causes less fuel to be consumed as delta change tech and change tech reduces fuel consumption..ya! answer is B
In love with "beatthegmat",I do not need any coaching I get all my doubt solved here on this 1 place... thanks to all the experts!!
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:46 am