Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union collapsed

[RobertoB400]

Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but as a result of dislocation and insecurity, the Russian population continues to dwindle at the rate of 700,000 a year. The government proposes to address the problem with a wide range of financial incentives, along with investments in improved health care, road safety and the like. These are positive measures, but they have been tried before, to little avail. A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere. If a greater part of the population participated in important decisions and shared in the country's wealth, then larger families would result. In addition, if corruption and greed among the elite were curbed, public health would improve and average life expectancy would increase.

The two boldfaced statements serve what function in the argument above?

The first is the main point of the analyst's argument; the second is a premise that supports the the first.
The first is a premise that undermines an alternative to the analyst's proposal; the second is a premise that supports the analyst's main claim.
The first is a premise that contradicts the main point made by the analyst; the second is the main point of the argument.
The first is a premise that supports a proposal; the second is that proposal.
The first is a conclusion that the argument endorses; the second is a premise that opposes that conclusion.

I incorrectly picked D as I see the first boldface as a premise discarding the government's proposal while giving room to the Analyst counter-proposal. I see the second boldface to contain half of the whole conclusion (or analyst's proposal). In specific, it contains the conclusion referring to the private sphere and the sentence starting with "In addition..." till the end of the passage, completes the whole conclusion adding the conclusion regarding the public sphere.

Also, in the correct answer B, the first boldface explanation seems totally legit, while the explanation given to the second boldface confuses me as it is defined as another premise rather than a conclusion or a proposal. I don't see facts in it, rather just hypothesis and predictions. Moreover, B says that the second boldface supports the analyst main claim, but isn't the second boldface the half of the claim itself?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

the analyst's main point is "A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere", which is not in boldface.

the next sentence (= the second boldfaced sentence) contains more detail about improving governance in the public sphere; the last sentence is about improving governance in the private sphere. these sentences are there to justify the main point above.

[RonPurewal]

also, please title threads correctly (first few words of the problem). i've fixed the title this time, but please read the forum rules and follow them!

[DavidK634]

Can someone explain why D is incorrect?

[rahularman]

Can someone explain why D is incorrect?

Analyst draws attention towards decreasing population after collapse of Soviet Union. then put forward government plan to annul it but counters with these attempts made in past with no success. Then proposes alternate and provide evidences to strengthen alternate proposal.

Therefore 1 BF = counter govt proposal
2nd BF = supports alternate plan

Therefore,


The first is the main point of the analyst's argument; the second is a premise that supports the first. -> 2nd BF doesn't support 1 BF.

The first is a premise that undermines an alternative to the analyst's proposal; the second is a premise that supports the analyst's main claim.

The first is a premise that contradicts the main point made by the analyst; the second is the main point of the argument.-->> 2nd BF is not main argument rather it supports main argument.

The first is a premise that supports a proposal; the second is that proposal. ----->>> 1st BF is doesn't support a proposal rather it opposes initial proposal.

The first is a conclusion that the argument endorses; the second is a premise that opposes that conclusion. ---->>1st BF is not conclusion endorsed by argument.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Good work rahularman! I'd just add that it's worth being clear to yourself what a proposal is. The analyst's "better plan" is a proposal, but the second boldfaced sentence is not a proposal.