Feruza Matyakubova wrote:hey guys....
the OA is NOT A.
the sourse is mgmat practice test #3.

Feruza Matyakubova wrote:United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.

The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.

The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.

The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.

C for me.

environmentalist coclude that company did things in good will...
and first bold sentence supports the conclusion by saying that more revenue could have been generated .. but company did not go for that...


The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.

Feruza Matyakubova wrote:Sorry for the delay! Here is the MGMAT explanation:

The argument concludes that United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with reaching its financial goals. However, this conclusion must be distinguished from the assertion of the environmentalists described in the question - that the actions taken by United Energy indicate that the company is putting environmental concerns ahead of financial returns. The answer choices may consider either the author's conclusion (which is considered the overall conclusion) or the conclusion asserted by the environmentalists (which is considered the opposing opinion).

This is an Analyze the Argument Structure question. The best approach is to consider each boldface in turn.

(A) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion that United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals; the second does not call the conclusion into question as much as state its opposite.

(B) The first boldface does not state the conclusion of the argument; the second boldface does not support the conclusion of the main argument, which is that United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.

(C) CORRECT. The first boldface supports the environmentalists? conclusion that United Energy is acting in a manner that places environmental impact ahead of financial returns. The second boldface states this conclusion.

(D) The first boldface is a relationship that does support the environmentalists' conclusion; however, the second states this conclusion, and does not undermine it.

(E) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion, which is that United Energy may be acting in its financial interest; the second boldface also does not support this conclusion.