Critical Reasoning:Identifying the conclusion in CR problems

[suyash.tiwari]

More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient. Over time,
these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies.
Such efforts are also essential to tackling the two big energy-related issues of the age: global warming and the
dependence on precarious supplies of oil. The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the
necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks. Which of the following, if true,
provides the most effective support for the argument?
- On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States.
- Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995.
- In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto
industry.
- The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming.
- The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.

OA:[spoiler]C[/spoiler]

I am fine as far as OA is concerned.
I need some help here in identifying the conclusion.
I am not able to decide in such lengthy CR's that what exactly is the conclusion.
Here I feel that Over time,
these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies. is the conclusion just on the basis of feel that this sentence conveys.
It says something about the future and looks like a prediction or a conclusion.
But I am also confused that The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the
necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks. might be the conclusion as well, however the world should is making me skeptical about considering this as a conclusion.

Can anybody help me here as well as in general in figuring out how to find the conclusion in such lengthy problems.

Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

Happy to help! Okay, two points:

1) I use the "why" test to help me identify the conclusion. Find what you think is the conclusion and ask yourself "why?". There should be reasons why someone has reached this conclusion in the rest of the sentence.

For example, imagine if we incorrectly identify the first sentence in the argument as the conclusion:
"More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient."

Ask yourself WHY? Why are these companies consuming less energy? There is no answer in the argument. Possible answers might be to save money, to go green, etc., but this argument doesn't contain any reason why. Thus, this cannot be the conclusion.

Now, let's look at the correct conclusion:
"The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks."
WHY? Because:
--companies are working to consume less energy by becoming efficient
--this effort could place the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market for new technologies
--this would also help with global warming and foreign oil

See how this one is much more supported by the passage?

Also:
2) If I saw something that had a structure of fact, fact, fact, and then opinion (someone SHOULD do something) the opinion is very frequently the conclusion. For example:
My roof is 15 years old.
It has hail damage.
My neighbors have advised me that it is time to replace the roof.
I should replace my roof.

Going back to #1, also, see how nicely the why test would work here in identifying the conclusion that I should replace my roof.

I hope that all of this helps! :-)

[jp.jprasanna]

Happy to help! Okay, two points:

1) I use the "why" test to help me identify the conclusion. Find what you think is the conclusion and ask yourself "why?". There should be reasons why someone has reached this conclusion in the rest of the sentence.

For example, imagine if we incorrectly identify the first sentence in the argument as the conclusion:
"More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient."

Ask yourself WHY? Why are these companies consuming less energy? There is no answer in the argument. Possible answers might be to save money, to go green, etc., but this argument doesn't contain any reason why. Thus, this cannot be the conclusion.

Now, let's look at the correct conclusion:
"The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks."
WHY? Because:
--companies are working to consume less energy by becoming efficient
--this effort could place the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market for new technologies
--this would also help with global warming and foreign oil

See how this one is much more supported by the passage?

Also:
2) If I saw something that had a structure of fact, fact, fact, and then opinion (someone SHOULD do something) the opinion is very frequently the conclusion. For example:
My roof is 15 years old.
It has hail damage.
My neighbors have advised me that it is time to replace the roof.
I should replace my roof.

Going back to #1, also, see how nicely the why test would work here in identifying the conclusion that I should replace my roof.

I hope that all of this helps! :-)

Hi Jamie - Im a bit confused with option E.

The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.

I understand the conclusion and facts that support the conclusion. Usually Before Jumping onto the answer choice I try to indentify the gaps (assumptions)

So few assumptions can be...

1. these incentives would actually help the companies!
2. Companies can actually expand i.e these markets are expandable they are not as big as they can be, currently. For example :
50 gallons of gas in your Volvo can drive 100 miles, sso to drive 120 miles add 10 more gallons to your Volvo
- Weakener could be that tank has capacity no more than 50 gal.
So a strengthener can remove this possiblity and say the tank can hold 60 gal. - AM I OK TO THINK THIS WAY?

Isn't Option E similar to 2 point above.....
What am I missing here?

[tim]

the question is asking for most effective support. if i assert that studying will help Bob improve on the GMAT, it is far more useful for me to point out that studying has helped Bob in the past than to point out that Bob is currently terrible at the GMAT..