CR - Boldface - Libraries, which generally do not charge...

[pmmalkan+gmat]

Libraries, which generally do not charge a fee to borrowers, have traditionally had little negative impact on book sales. A small publishing company plans to increase sales of its paperback novels by providing online versions of them to the public free of charge. Several business editorials have criticized this potential action, arguing that customers will not want to spend money to purchase novels that they can read for free. Since most people prefer to read on paper rather than on a computer screen, the publishers feel that customers who begin novels online, and enjoy them, may want to finish the novels in paperback form. Additionally, the publishers understand that customers who enjoy a book will often purchase it after reading it, in order to read it again in the future.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first refutes a pattern of cause and effect the publishers predict will hold in this issue; the second is a generalization the publishers accept as being true.

(B) The first is an explanation that is challenged by the publishers' argument; the second is the argument.

(C) The first is evidence that supports the plan of the publishers; the second represents a cause and effect relationship that justifies the plan.

(D) The first is a prediction in support of the publishers; the second is evidence against that prediction.

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the position of those who oppose the plan; the second is evidence that could be used by those who oppose the plan.

Correct Ans: E
My Question: (E) states "the second is evidence..."
How is the second boldface "evidence" ? I think I get why all other answers are wrong but why is E the correct answer ?

Thanks very much
--Priya

[tim]

In boldface questions, if a boldface statement is not the conclusion, it will be evidence either for or against the conclusion. You just need to figure out what type of evidence it is..

[gaurav.pdhyy]

Apart from that Tim. Why is D wrong? The first is a prediction in support of the publishers(no fee=> little negative impact on sales); the second is evidence against that prediction( for which the critics are arguing).

Whats wrong with this reasoning??

[dmitryknowsbest]

Two problems with D:

1) The first statement is not a prediction. It describes what has "traditionally" happened, not what may happen in the future.

2) The second statement is not evidence against the first. Although they are premises used by competing sides, the existing facts are not being disputed. (In CR, we never dispute the premises.) The second statement is a counter-premise, but it is being used against the publisher's conclusion, not its premises.

[gaurav.pdhyy]

Two problems with D:

1) The first statement is not a prediction. It describes what has "traditionally" happened, not what may happen in the future.

2) The second statement is not evidence against the first. Although they are premises used by competing sides, the existing facts are not being disputed. (In CR, we never dispute the premises.) The second statement is a counter-premise, but it is being used against the publisher's conclusion, not its premises.

Hi Dmitry : I seriously have a doubt that 2 is actually a premise. The 2nd statement is like a conclusion by the critics against what position or plans publishing house guys have taken.

According to this argument the flow goes. 1st --> A premise(untouched). ---> Based on that premise is a plan(conclusion) --> Critized by editorials(Conclusion in opinion form against Premise).
---> All the reasons of publishing house as to why their Conclusion is fine and supported.
2nd cannot be an evidence its a judgement by the editorial guys supported by no premise. It can't be an evidence at all. Its not a statement of fact either. That's just an arbit feeling like i like obama thats it.
Under this clout i doubt the answer mentioned :(

[jnelson0612]

Two problems with D:

1) The first statement is not a prediction. It describes what has "traditionally" happened, not what may happen in the future.

2) The second statement is not evidence against the first. Although they are premises used by competing sides, the existing facts are not being disputed. (In CR, we never dispute the premises.) The second statement is a counter-premise, but it is being used against the publisher's conclusion, not its premises.

Hi Dmitry : I seriously have a doubt that 2 is actually a premise. The 2nd statement is like a conclusion by the critics against what position or plans publishing house guys have taken.

According to this argument the flow goes. 1st --> A premise(untouched). ---> Based on that premise is a plan(conclusion) --> Critized by editorials(Conclusion in opinion form against Premise).
---> All the reasons of publishing house as to why their Conclusion is fine and supported.
2nd cannot be an evidence its a judgement by the editorial guys supported by no premise. It can't be an evidence at all. Its not a statement of fact either. That's just an arbit feeling like i like obama thats it.
Under this clout i doubt the answer mentioned :(

guarav, I'd like to address what you are saying but don't fully understand your last two sentences. I don't think that Dmitry is saying that the second boldface part is evidence. He is saying that it is a counter-premise which is attacking the publisher's conclusion.

I was able to use a POE approach on this one and it led to E. I don't think E is a perfect answer but all of the other answers have serious flaws. E is the only one that is even possible really.

[StaceyKoprince]

Hi, guys

The debate on this one has been brought to my attention. I'm pulling it to send to our "CAT Fix" committee.

I think there are a couple of problematic things with this one:
(1) The passage text is simply too long.
(2) It's problematic to refer to the second boldface as "evidence" in its current form. If the argument said "customers do not purchase novels that they can read for free" then we could accept it as a statement of fact - that's evidence. But "will not want" can also be interpreted as a prediction, and a prediction is a claim, not evidence.

There's a conversation going on above about whether to classify the second boldface as some sort of premise (whether supporting or counter) or a conclusion.

These kinds of questions also often include an opposing viewpoint, but that does not mean that we have two conclusions. It's important to note, on these kinds of questions, that the author's claim or the primary point of view is considered the main conclusion. An opposing point of view will be considered a counter-premise (or something that goes against the main conclusion), even if that counter-premise itself is a claim.

Part of the problem with the length of this passage is that it is not as clear as it should be what the main claim is - but still remember that you are not going to identify two separate, standalone conclusions on these. You'll have the main claim (typically the author's POV, though we can't tell that on this one), and then any opposing view is a counter-premise (a #3, for those who use our strategy to solve these).