Critical Reasoning

Since it has become known that several executives from a major car manufacturing company have bought cars produced in their own factories, consumers who own models of vehicles manufactured by this company, who had been previously worried by the fact that most models produced by this manufacturer had received poor safety ratings, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, because top executives presumably believe in the safety of the vehicles they use to transport themselves and their families, the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, because executives of large companies have been known to purchase their own products in a calculated attempt to dispel threats to their company's reputation.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

1. The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
2. 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.
3. The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
4. 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.
5. 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.

pl explain your choice. what is conclusion.?? thanks.

IMO A

1) "several executives from a major car manufacturing company have bought cars produced in their own factories"
2) "executives of large companies have been known to purchase their own products in a calculated attempt to dispel threats to their company's reputation."

I believe the argument has two conclusions. The consumers have come to the minor conclusion that "the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable". The author's main conclusion is that the consumers "reasoning might well be overoptimistic".

1. "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support." Correct. I believe this accurately describes the components. The first gives evidence for the consumers' conclusion that "the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable". The second gives the author's reason for questioning that evidence.

2. "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." Incorrect. The second is not a conclusion, it is a premise.

3. "The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion." Incorrect. The first provides support for the minor conclusion. The second is a premise for the main conclusion.

4. "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." Incorrect. The argument is about consumer perceptions on safety ratings. The argument doesn't seek to explain why executives are buying certain cars.

5. "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." Incorrect. Again, the argument is about consumer perceptions on safety ratings. The argument doesn't seek to explain why executives are buying certain cars.

This one took me way more than two minutes and I still have my doubts. I'll be interested to see the OA when it comes out.

rkanthilal wrote:IMO A

1) "several executives from a major car manufacturing company have bought cars produced in their own factories"
2) "executives of large companies have been known to purchase their own products in a calculated attempt to dispel threats to their company's reputation."

I believe the argument has two conclusions. The consumers have come to the minor conclusion that "the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable". The author's main conclusion is that the consumers "reasoning might well be overoptimistic".

1. "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support." Correct. I believe this accurately describes the components. The first gives evidence for the consumers' conclusion that "the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable". The second gives the author's reason for questioning that evidence.

2. "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." Incorrect. The second is not a conclusion, it is a premise.

3. "The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion." Incorrect. The first provides support for the minor conclusion. The second is a premise for the main conclusion.

4. "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." Incorrect. The argument is about consumer perceptions on safety ratings. The argument doesn't seek to explain why executives are buying certain cars.

5. "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." Incorrect. Again, the argument is about consumer perceptions on safety ratings. The argument doesn't seek to explain why executives are buying certain cars.

This one took me way more than two minutes and I still have my doubts. I'll be interested to see the OA when it comes out.

I completely agree. Pick A.

rkanthilal wrote:IMO A

1) "several executives from a major car manufacturing company have bought cars produced in their own factories"
2) "executives of large companies have been known to purchase their own products in a calculated attempt to dispel threats to their company's reputation."

I believe the argument has two conclusions. The consumers have come to the minor conclusion that "the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable". The author's main conclusion is that the consumers "reasoning might well be overoptimistic".

1. "The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support." Correct. I believe this accurately describes the components. The first gives evidence for the consumers' conclusion that "the safety ratings must have been exaggerated and unreliable". The second gives the author's reason for questioning that evidence.

2. "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." Incorrect. The second is not a conclusion, it is a premise.

3. "The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion." Incorrect. The first provides support for the minor conclusion. The second is a premise for the main conclusion.

4. "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." Incorrect. The argument is about consumer perceptions on safety ratings. The argument doesn't seek to explain why executives are buying certain cars.

5. "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." Incorrect. Again, the argument is about consumer perceptions on safety ratings. The argument doesn't seek to explain why executives are buying certain cars.

This one took me way more than two minutes and I still have my doubts. I'll be interested to see the OA when it comes out.

signing up here as well, for pretty much the same reasons. Have confidence in your reasoning, be agressive in your elimination, and you can reach A in less than 2 minutes just by. When first reading A, you can't really see anything wrong with it|: it's straightforward, doesn't have any fancy phrasing, and correct. A becomes your default then: the other answeer choices need to do something better than A to be correct, which is unlikely. With this in mind, You can quickly throw out B and C, and then give a slightly more critical eye to the tricky phrasing in D. Once you figure out that's bullshit, E is out as well.

This is copy of OG12 Q89 and OA is correct.

Could you please explain why D is wrong ? Both the statements in D sound correct too .

GMATMadeEasy wrote:This is copy of OG12 Q89 and OA is correct.

Could you please explain why D is wrong ? Both the statements in D sound correct too .

My problem with D is the part where the argument "seeks" to explain the first boldface. It would be wrong to say that the argument's whole point is to explain why the executives bought their own brand of car. the argument doesn't "seek" to exaplin anything - it tells you that the executives bought the cars, that some consumers reached interpretation A, and that interpretation B is also possible.

For D to be correct, the whole argument would need to revolve around the question of "why would an executive buy his own car?", followed by the two explanations and discussion. for example, if the argument had read: "some executives have bought their own brand of car. In the ensuing debate as to the reason behind this move....." then D would've been more correct. However, as it, a is simply a more accurate description of the argument: fact -> conclusion A reached based on this fact -> reason to question conclusion A.