diebeatsthegmat wrote: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. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies.
B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.

[spoiler]why D? why is it not B? i dont understand, anybody could help me undertsnad it please?[/spoiler]

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

diebeatsthegmat wrote: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. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies.
B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.

[spoiler]why D? why is it not B? i dont understand, anybody could help me undertsnad it please?[/spoiler]

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

diebeatsthegmat wrote: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. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies.
B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.

[spoiler]why D? why is it not B? i dont understand, anybody could help me undertsnad it please?[/spoiler]

Think about the argument's bottom line. What is the position favored by the argument? if someone comes to you and tells you this story, does he think that the investors should be relieved or alarmed?
If that someone thinks that the investors can be relieved, why does he add the worrisome bit about executives sometimes buying shares in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors? The argument is saying to investors "don't just go to sleep - check what's going on".

The above is an explanation of why D is correct: the first boldface is indeed an intermediate conclusion that is called into question by the argument. .
It's a conclusion because it's not a premise: we don't know that they have faith - we infer that from the premise that they buy stock.
it's intermediate because it's not the end of the line - leads to another conclusion: that the rumors are false.
It is called into question by the rest of the argument, including the 2nd conclusion - that investors may be too optimistic, based on the premise that executives have done some nasty shit in the past.

As to why B is incorrect, it is debatable whether the first merely summarizes the evidence, or actually adds a conclusion to the evidence. But the real killer is the description of the second boldface - the second is a conclusion, but it's not supported by the evidence - it's supported by new evidence brought after the 2nd boldface. The use of "the evidence" twice in B implies that the same evidence that is summarized by the first boldface is the one supporting the second boldface, which is untrue.