Bold CR-4

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:10 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:5 members

Bold CR-4

by gmatblood » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:44 pm
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.


[spoiler]Why not E ??[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:10 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:5 members

by gmatblood » Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:44 am
Any take on this one friends??

Legendary Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:8 members

by saketk » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:53 am
gmatblood 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. 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.


[spoiler]Why not E ??[/spoiler]
The first thing we need to do here is to find the 'conclusion' ..

It is evident that the author seems to support the point that the author is suspicious/questioning the fact that 'top official buying shares in their own bank is a positive sign or a relief ' - this is the conclusion which author is trying to attack. The author goes ahead to say that -- "Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic" - This is the main conclusion. He then provides an explanation to support his claim.

Only A seems to fit the bill. He is questioning the argument made to support the initial conclusion [the one in blue ].

Also, the reason why E can't be the answer is -- the first is the circumstance which the argument as a whole is trying to weaken and NOT explain

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:56 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by sohrabkalra » Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:35 am
(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
The reason why answer is not E is that the argument as a whole seeks to explain(the main point) is that the executives buying shares dispelling rumours of collapse could be false and NOT in any way the main point is the BUYING (Why, how,when) of shares. ofcourse, it talks about the possible cause of buying but is it the main point that the argument as a whole tries to explaiin ?

Hope this helps

Correct Answer IMO : A