BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

OG12 - 89

Expert replies
by geemat » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:43 pm
Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that, since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's fi nancial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. Such reasoning might well be overoptimistic, however, since corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
(B) 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.
(C) The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The fi rst describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
(E) The fi rst 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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by gmatmachoman » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:53 pm
Join the discussion

my ans

by vyomb » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:56 am
IMO D.
please provide OA.
Join the discussion

by gmat620 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:45 am
Its A for sure .

first statement stays as a support to the conclusion(banks are not losing ground)
however the second bold statement questions the support
Last edited by gmat620 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by xcusemeplz2009 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:01 am
imo A

the first is premise for conclusion and

however in second is introducing a counter premise and hence questioning the first.

OA pls
It does not matter how many times you get knocked down , but how many times you get up
Join the discussion

by geemat » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:34 pm
OA is A, can you all please explain ur approach?
Join the discussion

Explanation

by spring_bustle » Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:10 am
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion - Conclusion is " those worrisome rumors must be false " . Here evidence is "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank".

the second gives a reason for questioning that support- If executive bought the shares only to dispel negative rumors about the company , then this part questions the support for the conclusion.

Hope you have understood.
Spring
Join the discussion

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 4:44 pm
Cannot decide between A and D. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please
Join the discussion