Critical Reasoning

Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

In the argument given, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?
A: The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
B: The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
C: The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
D: Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
E: Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

OA : E
Please explain, thank
Set17Q32

nh8404052006 wrote:Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

In the argument given, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?
A: The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
B: The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
C: The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
D: Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
E: Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

OA : E
Please explain, thank
Set17Q32

Nice one! Bold faced questions are needed, as they are becoming increasingly frequent on the real test and there aren't many practice questions out there!

To answer to this question, the first step is to identify the conclusion. You may think that ALL the last sentence is the conclusion, but this would be wrong. The conclusion is simplly "the answer is yes". The first bold and the second bold parts try to reinforce this conclusion, the former by stating a fact necessary to introduce the argument and the latter by counter-argumenting an opposition that could be raised against the author's argument.
Hence, answer is E.

Agree with E

To break up this arguement,

Premise 1 : Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity

premise 2: the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

The second bold statement is not the conclusion. clearly the keyword "since" says itz a premise.

Now if you go through the options clearly E wins!

SO what is the conclusion,

conclusion 1(in quetion format)
it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly.

conclusion 2: yes. (clearly keyword)

Now if you go through the options clearly E wins!!

In first bold part in choice A (The first identifies the CONTENT of the conclusion of the argument), do we need to interpret that this is the conclusion or it provides subject for conclusion? Experts pls clarify.

nh8404052006 wrote:Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.

In the argument given, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?
A: The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
B: The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
C: The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
D: Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
E: Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

OA : E
Please explain, thank
Set17Q32

I would go E...

Each of those statements provide support. Giveaway is in second bold, there is premise indicator "since." Also, the conclusion is not bolded "whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel". So conclusion is in neither of the bolds. Eliminate A,B,C. With D, there is acknowledgment that each bold sentence is evidence, but it fails litmus test by stating that evidence calls argument into question. Calling into question means that it weakens or contradicts conclusion. This is not the case. So E, is runaway winner.

you got this man!

In my book, OA is B.

anyone else?

polarbear222 wrote:In my book, OA is B.

anyone else?

I've seen different forms of this question on the net. make sure you have the right bolded phrases.

OA (B) in my OG 12th Edition also. Same exact question..

FocusedMind wrote:OA (B) in my OG 12th Edition also. Same exact question..

I think the answer should be choice E. We can check whether each bold statement is evidence by asking what would happen to the conclusion without either of them.

The conclusion, as Ron pointed out above, is that Delta's operations are now using less fossil fuel.

What happens to the conclusion if we remove entirely the first bold statement? That is, what if they had stayed with the old fossil-fuel technology? Clearly, the conclusion is hurt. Hence, their switching to the new technology is clearly support or evidence for the conclusion.

It is much easier to tell that the second bold statement is evidence because of the keyword "since". But, again, you can check by removing it. If you remove, then clearly the conclusion is hurt.

FocusedMind, did the OG rearrange the correspondence of letters and answer choice statements? (I don't have my OG 12 with me right now).

And what bout the OE? Is it clearly referring to B?

IMO B (may be after i saw the answer )

Observe the words carefully. "The answer is yes, since............" Doesn't it mean that it is the content of the conclusion?

Also the THE ANSWER IS YES is just an answer for a question unstated in the argument, but not the conclusion IMO.

raghavakumar85 wrote:IMO B (may be after i saw the answer )

Observe the words carefully. "The answer is yes, since............" Doesn't it mean that it is the content of the conclusion?

Also the THE ANSWER IS YES is just an answer for a question unstated in the argument, but not the conclusion IMO.

If you think the second bold statement is the conclusion, then what do you think is the evidence that supports it?

Note that E was reported as the OA by the original poster. Typos (even in the OG) have been known to happen. Also, mjjjking's explanation above is very nice.

The correct answer is clearly E. I would be willing to bet a lot of money on it.

Testluv wrote:

raghavakumar85 wrote:IMO B (may be after i saw the answer )

Observe the words carefully. "The answer is yes, since............" Doesn't it mean that it is the content of the conclusion?

Also the THE ANSWER IS YES is just an answer for a question unstated in the argument, but not the conclusion IMO.

If you think the second bold statement is the conclusion, then what do you think is the evidence that supports it?

Note that E was reported as the OA by the original poster. Typos (even in the OG) have been known to happen. Also, mjjjking's explanation above is very nice.

The correct answer is clearly E. I would be willing to bet a lot of money on it.

Well, I can't bet on it . But, I noted your point.

Suppose in an argument it is stated that " Because it is X, it is Y" where X is evidence and Y is conclusion.

Same statement when re-structured can be stated as " It is Y because it is X" where again X is evidence and Y is conclusion.

Am i right?

raghavakumar85 wrote:

Testluv wrote:

raghavakumar85 wrote:IMO B (may be after i saw the answer )

Observe the words carefully. "The answer is yes, since............" Doesn't it mean that it is the content of the conclusion?

Also the THE ANSWER IS YES is just an answer for a question unstated in the argument, but not the conclusion IMO.

If you think the second bold statement is the conclusion, then what do you think is the evidence that supports it?

Note that E was reported as the OA by the original poster. Typos (even in the OG) have been known to happen. Also, mjjjking's explanation above is very nice.

The correct answer is clearly E. I would be willing to bet a lot of money on it.

Well, I can't bet on it . But, I noted your point.

Suppose in an argument it is stated that " Because it is X, it is Y" where X is evidence and Y is conclusion.

Same statement when re-structured can be stated as " It is Y because it is X" where again X is evidence and Y is conclusion.

Am i right?

Hi Raghava,

not quite. All people living in Toronto are living in Canada. That is to say, because they live in Toronto, they necessarily live in Canada.

Does that mean that all people who live in Canada live in Toronto?

What you are actually talking about in the above is conditional statements (if-then statements).

if x then y does NOT establish that if y then x.
if x then y does establish that if no y, then no x.

At any rate, this does not get tested on the GMAT.

I assume you are asking in attempt to assert that the last sentence's being the conclusion can theoretically be supported by the ideas that preceded it?

The word "since" will ALWAYS signal evidence and not conclusion. (Just as it does in everyday speech.)

And the "content of the conclusion" must be interpreted as "the conclusion." If it were to be interepreted as something else, the question would lose its objectivity, and would be ambiguous. GMAT goes through great pains to remove ambiguity and to ensure that there is only one logically supportable and correct interpretation of every phrase used. (That, in fact, is the main reason the test costs so much to take).