Is it B ?

B should be correct. the second bold face is the conclusion. only B gets it right.

jkaustubh wrote:During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policy holders will respond to the discount by installing such devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first and the second are both evidence offered by the argument as support for its main conclusion.
B. The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgement reached by that assessment.
C. The first is the position the argument seeks to explain; the second is a judgement the argument uses to support that position.
D. The first is a development that the argument seeks to explain; the second is a prediction the argument makes in support of the explanation it offers.
E. The first presents a development whose likely outcome is at issue in the argument; the second is a judgement the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome.

Again I don't have the OA, so expert advice is needed.

OA:B

Let us first understand the various parts of the argument:

Problem: Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain.
Solution 1: Reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries.
Challenge 1: Pro-tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way
Solution 2: Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policy holders will respond to the discount by installing such devices
Conclusion: Because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts

In any boldface question, first vertically scan the explanations given for the first boldface:
A: The first boldface is not evidence that supports the main conclusion (it says nothing about Solution 2) Eliminate.
C: The first boldface is not what the argument seeks to explain. Eliminate.
D: Again, the first boldface is not what the argument seeks to explain. Eliminate. (At this stage, don't worry about the differences in meaning between 'development', 'position' etc. Those can be closely examined at a later stage, if necessary)
E: The likely outcome of the first boldface - i.e. the outcome of Challenge 1 - is not at issue in the argument. The argument has examined a different solution.

Thus, we can zero in on option B. Now let's make sure B is correct:

B says that the first boldface is a problem, a response to which the argument assesses. This is correct - the first boldface is Challenge 1 and the argument is assessing Solution 2, which had to be adopted because of Challenge 1.

The second boldface is a judgment arrived at the end of this assessment - i.e. it is the main conclusion. This is also correct. Thus, B is the right answer.

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing such devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

An observation/finding : "‹During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payout on car-theft claims has been larger than the company can afford to sustain

A fact/ a strategy which does not solve the issue at hand :Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way.

Author's opinion : Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices.

FACT : Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing such devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation.

Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.To tag the whole statement is tricky as it consists of a premise and a conclusion. So I would tag it as a prediction


What is the main conclusion of the argument : I would say Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts

Reasoning as why I chose this to be conclusion :
Event 1 : Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. and because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen.

Event 2 : Thus, , Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.

Clearly event 1 is helping event 2 to happen so event 2 is the conclusion

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first and the second are both evidence offered by the argument as support for its main conclusion."‹ OUT"‹

(B) The first presents a problem a response to which the argument assesses; the second is the judgment reached by that assessment.

(C) The first is the position the argument seeks to establish; the second is a judgment the argument uses to support that position."‹OUT"‹

(D) The first is a development that the argument seeks to explain; the second is a prediction the argument makes in support of the explanation it offers."‹OUT"‹

(E) The first presents a development whose likely outcome is at issue in the argument; the second is a judgment the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome.

The first presents a development< Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries,so it cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way > whose likely outcome <that large payouts will still happen >is at issue in the argument; I find the first part of E perfectly correct ?? Please comment my reasoning is right?

the second is a judgment the argument uses in support of its conclusion about that outcome.
This one is lttle tricky to decode as the second bold statement is a composite of a premise and a conclusion . How to I dissect this part.

Hi Mitch Sir - Could you please help me here? I want to understand how E is wrong.