Critical Reasoning

vikram4689 wrote:Donodyne Inc. has decided to offer severance packages to many of their senior employees and to promote junior employees into executive positions, with only slight increases in the junior employee's salaries. Questions have been raised about whether the company can thus determine that this plan will save money for Donodyne, because for any given position, the cost to the company of the severance package will be less than the amount that the company will save by paying a reduced salary. This surely will be the case, because the severance package is a one-time cost, while the money saved by paying a salary that is only slightly higher than that paid to a current junior Donodyne employee will continue to accrue for each year in which a newly promoted senior employee works at a lower salary than that at which an old senior employee would have worked.

In the argument above, what are the roles of the two boldfaced portions of the text?
Since the options talk about the structure of the argument, let's detail the argument first.

Premise:Donodyne wants to let go of senior people by giving them severance packages and wants to promote the junior people into the senior roles while giving the juniors only slight increases in salaries.

Conclusion: "This surely will be the case". The case being discussed is "The plan for saving money for donodyne". Hence the conclusion is "Donodyne will save money"

Now the first boldface talks about:
"Only slight increases in junior employees' salaries" This supports the conclusion.

The second boldface is in two parts:
Part 1:
"this plan will save money for Donodyne", This is same as the conclusion that we identified earlier.
Part 2:
"Because for any given position, the cost to the company of the severance package will be less than the amount that the company will save by paying a reduced salary." This is a supporting statement for the conclusion which gives us a reason as to why the plan will be successful, thereby validating the conclusion.

With this in mind, let's look at the options:


A
The first names the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence to support that conclusion.
This is incorrect. The first one is a support statement. It doesn't name content of the conclusion.

B

The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
This is correct. The first one is a supporter. The second identifies content of the conclusion.

C
The first states evidence to support the conclusion of the argument; the second is a counterexample brought up to call the conclusion of the argument into question.
This is incorrect. The first is evidence but the second is NOT a counterexample.

D
The first names one of two conclusions named in the argument; the second calls this first conclusion into question by raising an overlooked possibility.
This is incorrect too. There is only one conclusion. In any case, the first one is a support statement (premise) and not a conclusion.

E
Both the first and the second are provided as evidence to support the conclusion of the argument.
Whilst the first is presented as evidence to support the conclusion, and the second one doesn't; it primarily identifies the conclusion. B is a much better option than E.

B is the final answer.

Let me know if this helps

vikram4689 wrote:eagleeye:
conclusion is "This surely will be the case" whereas option B refers to "this plan will save money for Donodyne" as conclusion. Both of these are not equal. 1st is a definitive statement whereas 2nd is a part of larger sentences in which 2nd is used as a question/doubtful statement. context is similar to below statements:
1) my parents asked me whether i will score at least 760 on gmat.
2) Yes i will because i prepared well.
we cannot say that underlined part in 1) is conclusion. conclusion is 2)