Hi All,

Can someone please tell what is the conclusion of the following argument:

1. The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.......or
2. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.


===============================================


The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. The subway system is outdated and understaffed. The buses rarely run on schedule and their routes are inconvenient. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.

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

A. The first is an explanation of a current state of affairs; the second is a prediction based on that state of affairs.

B. The first is a statement of fact in opposition to the author's conclusion; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first emphasizes an existing problem; the second offers a proposal to solve that problem.

D. The first is information the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand; the second describes that situation.

E. The first is a justification of an impending problem; the second describes the consequences of that problem.

OA = A