Critical Reasoning

Uva@90 wrote:Hi All,
I find difficult in this question.
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 financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

E. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seek to establish.

I Chose D but answers is A
Could any one please explain.

Uva@90 wrote:Hi All,
I find difficult in this question.
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 financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

E. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seek to establish.

I Chose D but answers is A
Could any one please explain.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Uva.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Uva@90 wrote:Hi All,
I find difficult in this question.
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 financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

E. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seek to establish.

I Chose D but answers is A
Could any one please explain.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Uva.

What the BANK DEPOSITORS conclude: Those worrisome rumors about the impending financial collapse of the bank are FALSE.
According to the depositors, the first BF -- several of the bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank -- serves to SUPPORT this conclusion.

What THE PASSAGE concludes: Such reasoning might be overly optimistic.
In other words, the rumors about the impending financial collapse MIGHT NOT BE FALSE.
According to the passage, the second BF -- corporate executives have been known to buy shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors -- serves to WEAKEN the conclusion of the bank depositors.

Answer choice A: The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support.
This answer choices matches the analysis above.

The correct answer is A.

D: The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain.
No: the passage AS A WHOLE is not trying to explain WHY a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank.
If this were the case, the CONCLUSION of the passage would be that these executives are trying to dispel negative rumors.
The conclusion here is not about the executives but about the BANK: that it might be headed for financial collapse.
According to the passage, the circumstance described by the first BF -- that top executives have been buying shares in their own bank -- could serve to SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION that the BANK might be in trouble.

Uva@90 wrote:Mitch,
Thanks for your reply.

Still have few doubts,
In your answer you have TWO conclusion(Depositors and Passage)

Ideally PASSAGE conclusion is the main conclusion right. And first part in Option A states that "Supporting a conclusion" but it din't do it.
(whereas it support the Depositors conclusion)
so how option A is correct ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Uva@90 wrote:Mitch,
Thanks for your reply.

Still have few doubts,
In your answer you have TWO conclusion(Depositors and Passage)

Ideally PASSAGE conclusion is the main conclusion right. And first part in Option A states that "Supporting a conclusion" but it din't do it.
(whereas it support the Depositors conclusion)
so how option A is correct ?

Answer choice 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.
While this answer choice is incorrect, it does make the following distinction clear:
A CONCLUSION is contrary to THE MAIN CONCLUSION.
Implication:
A conclusion = the conclusion of the depositors.
The main conclusion = the conclusion of the passage.

Thus, answer choice A correctly states that the first BF has been taken as evidence supporting A CONCLUSION (the conclusion of the DEPOSITORS).

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts,

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 financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought 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 first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.

E. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seek to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seek to establish.


Would like to confirm my understanding on Option E.

Option E is wrong because FIRST part of E that refers to first BOLD FACE is INCORRECT. Right ?

P.S: Although, Second part of E seems to correctly refer to the SECOND BOLD FACE. Am I correct ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:I'd argue that they're both problematic. The first bold is problematic because the point of the argument isn't to explain the circumstance of executives buying shares of their own companies. The point is to assess whether the bank depositors are warranted in feeling relieved as a result of these purchases.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:The second is problematic because we don't get a single explanation about why executives are behaving the way they are. Rather, we get the interpretation of depositors about this behavior (executives are optimistic about the prospects of the company) and an appeal from the author to be somewhat skeptical of this interpretation (executives sometimes cynically attempt to project health when their company is, in fact, ailing.)

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:I'd argue that they're both problematic. The first bold is problematic because the point of the argument isn't to explain the circumstance of executives buying shares of their own companies. The point is to assess whether the bank depositors are warranted in feeling relieved as a result of these purchases.

Thanks Dave! Got this part.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:The second is problematic because we don't get a single explanation about why executives are behaving the way they are. Rather, we get the interpretation of depositors about this behavior (executives are optimistic about the prospects of the company) and an appeal from the author to be somewhat skeptical of this interpretation (executives sometimes cynically attempt to project health when their company is, in fact, ailing.)

Don't get this clearly...!

I guess, the argument seeks to establish that the bank's depositors might well be overoptimistic. Right ?
And to support this point it provides evidence as corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

So, don't really understand why this interpretation will be wrong ? Could you please clarify ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I guess, the argument seeks to establish that the bank's depositors might well be overoptimistic. Right ?
And to support this point it provides evidence as corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

So, don't really understand why this interpretation will be wrong ? Could you please clarify ?

This strikes me as a fairly subtle distinction. The problematic phrase is "the explanation that the argument seeks to establish."

I'd think of it like this.

Explanation: This is why X is occurring.

Questioning support: This is why X might not be valid.

"Questioning support" is a more accurate way to describe what the second bold piece is doing. The depositors are confident, but maybe they shouldn't be. There is no central explanation that the argument seeks to establish. The notion that depositors might be overoptimistic doesn't explain anything.

Isn't it true that in BF CR, it's the very CONCLUSION (in general) that the ARGUMENT seeks to establish ? I mean, doesn't this phrase "ARGUMENT seeks to establish" GENERALLY point toward the very CONCLUSION in BF CR ? (From this aspect ONLY, I got the sense that BF2 in option E stands correct!)

Curious to know your thoughts!

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Isn't it true that in BF CR, it's the very CONCLUSION (in general) that the ARGUMENT seeks to establish ? I mean, doesn't this phrase "ARGUMENT seeks to establish" GENERALLY point toward the very CONCLUSION in BF CR ? (From this aspect ONLY, I got the sense that BF2 in option E stands correct!)

Curious to know your thoughts!

I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but it isn't quite what E says. E doesn't assert that the argument seeks to establish the conclusion, but that the statement is an explanation.

Take a simple case in honor of the Super Bowl.

Person 1: The Falcons are going to win the game today.

Person 2: I think you're being a little overoptimistic here.

It's fair to say that person 2 has offered a conclusion. It's also fair to say that person 2 is attempting to undermine person 1's conclusion. But person 2 is not offering an explanation of something.

If I interpret it as follows:

Person 2 is ACTUALLY offering an explanation of the case that The Falcons are NOT going to win the game today perhaps!

Why *that* will be wrong (and how) ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Isn't it true that in BF CR, it's the very CONCLUSION (in general) that the ARGUMENT seeks to establish ? I mean, doesn't this phrase "ARGUMENT seeks to establish" GENERALLY point toward the very CONCLUSION in BF CR ? (From this aspect ONLY, I got the sense that BF2 in option E stands correct!)

Curious to know your thoughts!

I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but it isn't quite what E says.