-
piyush_nitt
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:15 pm
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 12 times
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Employer and Employee
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
would go for A
conclusion: employers are partially responsible for the unions demanding prohibitively high prices
A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
B. the first is not an evidence for the conlusion (the second boldface). the first bf is just a background info
C. the first is not an inference, if it were it wouldnt be stated in the stimulus in the first place
D. was tied between A and D. discarded D as it not defend the authors position (the second bf). the first bf is just a background info.
E. the second bf is not an evidence. it is the conclusion.
conclusion: employers are partially responsible for the unions demanding prohibitively high prices
A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
B. the first is not an evidence for the conlusion (the second boldface). the first bf is just a background info
C. the first is not an inference, if it were it wouldnt be stated in the stimulus in the first place
D. was tied between A and D. discarded D as it not defend the authors position (the second bf). the first bf is just a background info.
E. the second bf is not an evidence. it is the conclusion.
IMO - C, bc 1-st bolded can be inferred indeed, and it has no influence on the 2-nd phrase, thus choices which extremely ties 1-st and 2-nd can be omitted.
we are the champions !
it is a background info, but how is it necessary to drawn conclusion(as A states) ?scoobydooby wrote:would go for A
A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
I think conclusion(2-nd) survives without 1-st bolded.
we are the champions !
I think it is necessary since it says in 2nd that the employers 'allowed' which can happen if they were in power.S0laris wrote:it is a background info, but how is it necessary to drawn conclusion(as A states) ?scoobydooby wrote:would go for A
A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
I think conclusion(2-nd) survives without 1-st bolded.
-
Kunal_gmat
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 45
- Thanked: 2 times
IMO 1-st bolded can be inferred from this:delhiboy1979 wrote:I think it is necessary since it says in 2nd that the employers 'allowed' which can happen if they were in power.S0laris wrote:it is a background info, but how is it necessary to drawn conclusion(as A states) ?scoobydooby wrote:would go for A
A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
I think conclusion(2-nd) survives without 1-st bolded.
1 - employees banded in unions in an attempt to create a greater ballance of power.... - means that ballance was not so great before as it became after. So, considering only 2 sides: employees and employer, it is possible to infer that: The employer held the majority of the power in this relationship - thus, it seems like an inference and nothing more.
By allowing unions to survive... - is not the conclusion already, but another premise
...employers are partially responsible for current environment... - this is main conclusion
we are the champions !
