Q11 - The Company's supply chain will develop

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
An issue is addressed, and a potential approach is stated. The author pivots to an opinion on that approach and follows it up with a similar situation/analogy to highlight the problem with the approach.

Answer Anticipation:
The author pivots in the third sentence to an opinion on what "Some" will argue. The author's opinion on an opposing view is almost always the main point of the argument. Checking the rest of the stimulus, it serves as support for the pivot, so the "But" is definitely the conclusion.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Opposing point. The author disagrees with these individuals.

(B) Bingo. It brings "irresponsible" in from the text of the argument, which should have led you to spend more time with this answer. While it is much more verbose than the actual conclusion, the stimulus refers back to the initial approach ("that is an irresponsible approach"), and this answer just rephrases "that approach" to what it actually is.

(C) Background information. This is the problem the solution for which the author and opposing point disagree.

(D) Underlying assumption/principle. The author assumes the analogy holds, but she never states that, making it an assumption.

(E) Counterpoint in the analogy. The author thinks this amounts to gross malpractice.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Watch for pivot words. Also, if the conclusion refers back to earlier ideas, expect the answer to bring in those ideas.

#officialexplanation

[aharonw1]

Why is the first line not the overall conclusion vs. "But that is an irresponsible approach"?

[maryadkins]

Good question. They're very similar ideas: the company is going to develop problems in the future unless we change things now, and the point that if we don't do this, it's irresponsible.

But the manager isn't just making the first point. The manager's point in making this whole argument is that if we DON'T do this, it's actually irresponsible. (See the whole last half where he talks about the reckless financial planner as an analogy.) If he just wanted to make the point in the first sentence, he wouldn't have gone into all of the detail about what reckless behavior is.

This supports (B).

By the way, in a more crass way, know that on these Identify the Conclusion questions the conclusion is often buried in the middle like it is here. And it often follows a "but" or "however."

[AyakiK696]

So the first sentence isn't the conclusion because it isn't supported by any other information right? And we can identify the second statement as the conclusion by observing that the rest of the stimulus is there to support it?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, that was well put.

Is there a reason "why" offered for the 1st sentence?

Why will our supply chain develop big weaknesses if we don't change our vendor contracts now?

[crickets]

Meanwhile,
Why is it irresponsible to approach the problem by procrastinating?
Because -- it would be the same sort of gross malpractice as if a financial planner told someone that retirement was so far away that they could safely procrastinate doing anything about it now.

Incidentally, another problem with (C) is that is doesn't replicate the meaning of the first sentence. The first sentence is specifically saying "If we don't change something NOW, our supply chain will develop big weaknesses."

(C) is saying "If we NEVER change the vendor contract, the supply chain will develop big weaknesses"

[HughM388]

Ship's captain: Abandon ship! Abandon ship! You will all die if you don't abandon ship! (Meanwhile, some people say corduroy is a nice fabric, but I say denim is superior. Just imagine: someone preferring corduroy over denim! That person would be guilty of the most grossly indecent taste.) All ye who value your lives, abandon ship!

Just out of curiosity, what's the overall conclusion of the ship captain's argument?