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.
The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
boldface 2
This topic has expert replies
-
mbadrew
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
- Location: San Francisco
- Thanked: 14 times
IMO it's A.
The conclusion is "United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals".
First bold print is an assumption = premise.
Second bold print is the conclusion that environmentalists' want.
A--makes sense.
B--doesn't make sense.
C--doesn't make sense.
D-first part supports; second doesn't.
The conclusion is "United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals".
First bold print is an assumption = premise.
Second bold print is the conclusion that environmentalists' want.
A--makes sense.
B--doesn't make sense.
C--doesn't make sense.
D-first part supports; second doesn't.
-
nervesofsteel
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
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.
-
2010gmat
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
- Thanked: 27 times
- GMAT Score:740
C
Because 1st --> supports environmentalists claim ---> 2nd bold ... 2nd is environmentalists conclusion...
arguments conclusion is not the 2nd bold statement so we can eliminate choices which say that 2nd bolded portion is arg's conclusion
Because 1st --> supports environmentalists claim ---> 2nd bold ... 2nd is environmentalists conclusion...
arguments conclusion is not the 2nd bold statement so we can eliminate choices which say that 2nd bolded portion is arg's conclusion
-
orel
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:39 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:660
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.
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.
-
mmslf75
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
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.
I chose A,
Can any1 pplease explain as to how must one approach the boldface
Is it that, we must look only at the BOLD part and look out for an answer,
for example, here, doing so results in C
and if we were to look at the entirety of the BOLD, ( ..XXXX......BOLD ........YYYYY) then A should be the answer
Right ??
-
papgust
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
- Thanked: 653 times
- Followed by:252 members
Normally, boldface questions can be answered just by focusing on boldface items. But sometimes according to me, we need to look at non-bold face items too like this question. For the second boldface, you wouldn't recognize the conclusion unless you look before the second boldface (non-bold item: "..some environmentalists assert that..")
-
Testluv
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 539 times
- Followed by:164 members
- GMAT Score:800
Look at the first bold-face. Now, look at just the first clauses of the answer choices. Look again at the first boldface...that first boldface is definitely describing a known fact--that the profitability of oil wells is greater than that of windmills So, the first boldface is NOT stating any sort of conclusion...eliminate B and D.
Now, look at the second boldface. Notice that the second boldface is the last clause of a sentence. Because sentences (and not clauses) convey complete thoughts, look at the sentence that contains the second boldface. Notice that this sentence reads "some environmentalists assert....BOLDFACE". Thus, the second sentence is the stating the environmentalists' conclusion...eliminate A and E.
...Choose C.
___________
Boldface questions almost always involve more than one point of view. Fortunately, the most common pattern by far is that of author's argument--counter-argument. Keep track of author's conclusion, author's evidence and counter-conclusion and counter-evidence. In other words just know who thinks what and why. A good place to start is by gripping onto the author's conclusion. Sometimes it helps to grip on to somebody else's conclusion (like, the environmentalists), and then to figure out what the author makes of that conclusion--as I said, almost always the author will be out to disagree with this other conclusion. If you master this strategy, then it will then be pretty straightforward to characterize the roles played by the boldface portions.
_________
Should you look at the other sentences? Insofar as looking at other sentences helps you to understand the different viewpoints, yes, you should consider the totality of the stimulus (in fact, you would be completley unable to characterize the roles of the boldface if the rest of the stimulus wasn't there).
Now, look at the second boldface. Notice that the second boldface is the last clause of a sentence. Because sentences (and not clauses) convey complete thoughts, look at the sentence that contains the second boldface. Notice that this sentence reads "some environmentalists assert....BOLDFACE". Thus, the second sentence is the stating the environmentalists' conclusion...eliminate A and E.
...Choose C.
___________
Boldface questions almost always involve more than one point of view. Fortunately, the most common pattern by far is that of author's argument--counter-argument. Keep track of author's conclusion, author's evidence and counter-conclusion and counter-evidence. In other words just know who thinks what and why. A good place to start is by gripping onto the author's conclusion. Sometimes it helps to grip on to somebody else's conclusion (like, the environmentalists), and then to figure out what the author makes of that conclusion--as I said, almost always the author will be out to disagree with this other conclusion. If you master this strategy, then it will then be pretty straightforward to characterize the roles played by the boldface portions.
_________
Should you look at the other sentences? Insofar as looking at other sentences helps you to understand the different viewpoints, yes, you should consider the totality of the stimulus (in fact, you would be completley unable to characterize the roles of the boldface if the rest of the stimulus wasn't there).
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
