The city government should invest surplus funds in improving

[rahul.gmat]

Ques 34 MGMAT Cat -3

The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. The subway system is outdated and understaffed. The buses rarely run on schedule and their routes are inconvenient. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


The first is an explanation of a current state of affairs; the second is a prediction based on that state of affairs.


The first is a statement of fact in opposition to the author's conclusion; the second is that conclusion.


The first emphasizes an existing problem; the second offers a proposal to solve that problem.


The first is information the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand; the second describes that situation.


The first is a justification of an impending problem; the second describes the consequences of that problem.
The conclusion of the argument is that the city will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and the city's financial health will be jeopardized if the city does not make changes soon to the transportation network. This is also the second bolded sentence. The first bolded sentence states that most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. We need to find a choice that correctly describes both of these bolded statements.
(A) CORRECT. This choice states that the first statement is an explanation of a current state of affairs. This explanation is consistent with the passage. The answer choice goes on to describe the second bolded statement as a prediction based on that state of affairs. This is also consistent with the passage: the second bolded statement predicts what will happen as a result of the inadequacy of the current transportation network.

(B) The first statement is indeed a statement of fact, but the author cites it in order to bolster his or her claim; thus the statement is not in opposition to the conclusion. The second statement is the conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first statement does not "emphasize an existing problem" but rather explains that existing problem (of an overtaxed subway). Moreover, the second statement does not "offer a proposal to solve that problem" but rather warns of what will happen if the problem is not solved.
(D) The first statement arguably presents information that "the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand"; however, the second statement does not describe that situation, but rather proposes a hypothetical outcome in the future.
(E) The first statement is not really "justification" (a term that implies approval on the part of the author) but rather an "explanation"; nor does it refer to an "impending problem" but rather an existing problem. Also, the second statement does not describe "consequences" exactly but rather "potential consequences" if the problem is left unchecked.
The correct answer is A.

(B), (C), and (D) are out. However I am unable to differentiate significatly bet (A) and (E). Explanation says (A) is better due to "justification" and "potential". I dunno but isn't that getting a little too strict. Consequences no matter what are always potential, so thats pretty obvious. Also justification can be very well used to indicate a premise which the first bolded phrase clearly is. Further, first part of (A) dosent seem right. The 2 sentences after the 1st bolded phrase represent the current situation. If anything, the 1st phrase represents the past and not present situation. I have a feeling this question has been erronousl edited. Coz explanation for (C) also refers to the subway which is not even a part of the bolded phrase. Please clarify.

[goelmohit2002]

Can someone please tell what is the authors conclusion here ?

1. The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.......or
2. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.

[RonPurewal]

@ original poster

yes, i can see why there's a problem here.
if i were to look at this problem and answer it in my own words, without looking at the answer choice (the strategy that tends to work best for problems like these), i would say something like this:
the first statement gives the origin or the genesis of a problem.

neither (a) nor (e) really fits this 100%, but i can see good cause for arguing that (e) is a better fit. specifically, the first statement doesn't directly describe a current situation (as pointed out by the original poster). also, if you replace the word "justification" with "cause" (not that far off), then choice (e) is perfect.

i'll call this problem to the attention of other problem creators.

[RonPurewal]

Can someone please tell what is the authors conclusion here ?

1. The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.......or
2. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.

note that this problem doesn't require you to identify the conclusion ... but it's still a useful exercise to do so.

takeaway:
if you have any doubts regarding which statement is the CONCLUSION of an argument, you should APPLY THE "THEREFORE TEST".

the "therefore test" works as follows:
* identify the 2 possible candidates for conclusion (call them "A" and "B")
* put the sentences "A, therefore B" and "B, therefore A" into words
* select the one that's more reasonable
* whatever follows "therefore" is the conclusion.

in this case:

"A, therefore B" is
The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network; THEREFORE, If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
this makes no sense at all.

"B, therefore A" is
If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized; THEREFORE, The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
this makes perfect sense.

therefore, your #1 (the city should spend the money) is the conclusion.

[goelmohit2002]

Can someone please tell what is the authors conclusion here ?

1. The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.......or
2. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.

note that this problem doesn't require you to identify the conclusion ... but it's still a useful exercise to do so.

takeaway:
if you have any doubts regarding which statement is the CONCLUSION of an argument, you should APPLY THE "THEREFORE TEST".

the "therefore test" works as follows:
* identify the 2 possible candidates for conclusion (call them "A" and "B")
* put the sentences "A, therefore B" and "B, therefore A" into words
* select the one that's more reasonable
* whatever follows "therefore" is the conclusion.

in this case:

"A, therefore B" is
The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network; THEREFORE, If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
this makes no sense at all.

"B, therefore A" is
If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized; THEREFORE, The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
this makes perfect sense.

therefore, your #1 (the city should spend the money) is the conclusion.

Thanks Ron for the awesome way !

Kindly tell does the same apply for finding subsidiary and final conclusion of the argument ?

[sunny.jain]

This is wonderful way...! sometimes it really hard to find conclusion...i will try to apply this technique there.

[RonPurewal]

Can someone please tell what is the authors conclusion here ?

1. The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.......or
2. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.

note that this problem doesn't require you to identify the conclusion ... but it's still a useful exercise to do so.

takeaway:
if you have any doubts regarding which statement is the CONCLUSION of an argument, you should APPLY THE "THEREFORE TEST".

the "therefore test" works as follows:
* identify the 2 possible candidates for conclusion (call them "A" and "B")
* put the sentences "A, therefore B" and "B, therefore A" into words
* select the one that's more reasonable
* whatever follows "therefore" is the conclusion.

in this case:

"A, therefore B" is
The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network; THEREFORE, If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
this makes no sense at all.

"B, therefore A" is
If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized; THEREFORE, The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.
this makes perfect sense.

therefore, your #1 (the city should spend the money) is the conclusion.

Thanks Ron for the awesome way !

Kindly tell does the same apply for finding subsidiary and final conclusion of the argument ?

it applies to finding the direction of the logic in any argument.

[gayatri.ganpaa]

One other error that I noticed in the explanation:

The conclusion of the argument is that the city will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and the city's financial health will be jeopardized if the city does not make changes soon to the transportation network. This is also the second bolded sentence.

However, the conclusion is the first statement of the passage. Can you please confirm if this above explanation given in the CAT answers is indeed wrong?

[dhingra_gaurav007]

so E is the correct awnser for this!!!

[esledge]

One other error that I noticed in the explanation:

The conclusion of the argument is that the city will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and the city's financial health will be jeopardized if the city does not make changes soon to the transportation network. This is also the second bolded sentence.

However, the conclusion is the first statement of the passage. Can you please confirm if this above explanation given in the CAT answers is indeed wrong?

Yes, you are right, the explanation needs to be edited to call out the correct conclusion.

This does not affect the correct answer, which is A.

[omerinbar11]

Hi just one follow up on this boldface question.

The "therefore" technique sounds really good, the only problem is that sometimes in these complex arguments, there are actualy two conclusion. As far as I understand, they can be either a subordinate and main conclusion, or two different equally weighted conclusion. There is no doubt that the first sentence is a conclusion. However, the second bold sentence needs the first prelim conclusion (based on the sentences that follow the first bold) to be logical. Under this line of reasoning 5 looks a lot better. How should the therefore technique be used to reflect multiple conclusion in an argument?
Thanks

[jnelson0612]

Hi just one follow up on this boldface question.

The "therefore" technique sounds really good, the only problem is that sometimes in these complex arguments, there are actualy two conclusion. As far as I understand, they can be either a subordinate and main conclusion, or two different equally weighted conclusion. There is no doubt that the first sentence is a conclusion. However, the second bold sentence needs the first prelim conclusion (based on the sentences that follow the first bold) to be logical. Under this line of reasoning 5 looks a lot better. How should the therefore technique be used to reflect multiple conclusion in an argument?
Thanks

Hi omer,
Take a look at this argument again:
The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. The subway system is outdated and understaffed. The buses rarely run on schedule and their routes are inconvenient. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.

Take a look at that first sentence again. You are characterizing that as a conclusion . . . are you sure that is correct?

[omerinbar11]

Hi Jamie,

sorry I wasn't clear. I was pointing at the first sentence in the argument, not the first bold: The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network.

[tim]

to answer what appears to be your main question, there is always one main conclusion in a CR argument on the GMAT. if you think the two conclusions are equally important, use the therefore test to figure out which one is being used to support the other. that second one is the main conclusion. if you cannot find the main conclusion from this method, it means you are doing something wrong, not that there are two main conclusions..

[omerinbar11]

OK Tim i'll try to stick with finding the single conclusion. thanks for the reply