Customers are aware that most of the faults that arise in their mobile phones are due to the excessive exposure of these phones to moisture or water. Accordingly, engineers at Talkit Inc. have developed a water-resistant phone that can stay underwater for at least 30 minutes without any resultant damage to either its hardware or software. However, since the manufacturing cost of the phone is anywhere between 25-30% more than that of an ordinary phone, the phone will be very expensive and as such not be able to find enough customers.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a reason provided to support a conclusion that the argument as a whole disputes; the second is an explanation that counters that conclusion.
B. The first is an observation that the argument disfavors; the second is the position that the argument seeks to establish.
C. The first is an observation that is not disputed by the argument; the second is a conclusion that is not supported by the first.
D. The first is an observation that is not disputed by the argument; the second is an explanation that the argument favors.
E. The first is a reason provided to support a conclusion which the argument as a whole disputes; the second is that conclusion.
OA C
Source: e-GMAT
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Customers are aware that most of the faults that arise in
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Here, we need to find the implications of the two boldfaced portions in the argument.
Premise:
- Faults from mobile phones are due to exposure to moisture or water.
- A water-resistant phone has been developed to last 30 minutes under water without any damage.
Conclusion: The phone will not have enough customers due to the 25-30% increase than that of an ordinary phone.
OPTION A - INCORRECT
The first does not support the conclusion because they refer to different things. The first is a reason given to why faults arise in mobile phones, while the second is a conclusion provided to the argument arise in mobile phones. So, the second boldfaced portion doesn't counter the conclusion because they refer to the same issue.
OPTION B - INCORRECT
The argument does not favor or disfavor any observation.
OPTION C - CORRECT
Yes, the first boldfaced portion is an observation that is not disputed in the argument.
OPTION D - INCORRECT
The second boldfaced portion is not an explanation but rather serves as a conclusion to the argument.
OPTION E - INCORRECT
The argument doesn't dispute the first boldfaced portion.
Premise:
- Faults from mobile phones are due to exposure to moisture or water.
- A water-resistant phone has been developed to last 30 minutes under water without any damage.
Conclusion: The phone will not have enough customers due to the 25-30% increase than that of an ordinary phone.
OPTION A - INCORRECT
The first does not support the conclusion because they refer to different things. The first is a reason given to why faults arise in mobile phones, while the second is a conclusion provided to the argument arise in mobile phones. So, the second boldfaced portion doesn't counter the conclusion because they refer to the same issue.
OPTION B - INCORRECT
The argument does not favor or disfavor any observation.
OPTION C - CORRECT
Yes, the first boldfaced portion is an observation that is not disputed in the argument.
OPTION D - INCORRECT
The second boldfaced portion is not an explanation but rather serves as a conclusion to the argument.
OPTION E - INCORRECT
The argument doesn't dispute the first boldfaced portion.
