himu wrote:United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
The first supports the environmentalists' conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
The first states the environmentalists' conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.
The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.

Identify whether each boldface portion is a CONCLUSION or PREMISE.

Boldface 2:
By forgoing drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
This is what the ENVIRONMENTALISTS ASSERT.
In other words, Boldface 2 is the CONCLUSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
WHY have the environmentalists come to this conclusion?
Because of Boldface 1:
The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.
This is a PREMISE offered in SUPPORT of the environmentalists' conclusion.

Look for an answer choice that MATCHES the analysis above:
Boldface 1 = PREMISE supporting the environmentalists' conclusion.
Boldface 2 = CONCLUSION of the environmentalists.
Answer choice C: The first supports the environmentalists' conclusion; the second states that conclusion.

The correct answer is C.

my take C .god why do i take time in bold face quetions!!

This is not an official question, nor does it have the same style. The answer choices are very simple and do not really require any work to understand. Compare this to any bold faced in the Official Guide. I am not saying that the question is easy. The stimulus may still require some work, but the answer choices are all short and very similar.

Let me agree with Mitch's approach and add something as well.

I have found that there are really 3 things that come into play with bold faced questions.

You may need to know the following about each portion in bold:

1) What is the function of the part in bold? (As Mitch says, conclusion and evidence are two of the main functions, however it could also be an opinion, a prediction, or another function).

2) How does the portion in bold relate to the main conclusion of the argument? The bold portion may support the main conclusion, it might oppose it, it could in fact be the main conclusion.

3) Finally how does the bold portion relate to the other bold portion? The bold portion may support the other bold or it may be supported. The two portions may contradict or undermine each other. Once could be the plan and the other the consequences, etc.

The last two may not apply every time. Perhaps the answer choices will not mention the relationship to the conclusion on a particular question, or may not mention the relationship between answer choices on another. But with these three questions in mind you can approach bold-faced questions with confidence.