DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Well, a finding would be some kind of fact or premise. The notion that black bears are responsible for the decrease in the deer population is an alternative conclusion that's informed by two facts.
1) The black bear population is up
2) black bears feed on deer
The author isn't trying to explain those facts. Rather, he's using those facts to support his alternative conclusion.
Since it has become known that
several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since
corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second states a contrary conclusion that is the main conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
This is a different stimulus but I'm posting this one here because of the apparent similarity of choices:
'It is a finding that the argument seeks to explain', as stated in choice B of the original question in thread and
'The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain', as stated in choices D and E of the above question.
Can 'circumstances' be used for 'reasoning/evidence' or is it that 'circumstances', like findings are restricted to premises/opinions ?