PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 2, Question 11
Transcript
Question 11, when a question asks you for the overall conclusion of the argument, we call that a conclusion question. And our job on conclusion questions is simply to locate the conclusion. The correct answer will either be a direct quotation of that conclusion or a plausible rephrasing of it. But of course before we can recognize it, we need to break the argument into its component parts.
Here the conclusion begins sort of in the middle of the argument. That is an irresponsible approach. Of course, we need to read the sentence before that to figure out what is the irresponsible approach. And the irresponsible approach is that some people argue that this problem is so far in the future, there's no need to address it today.
Of course we also need to go back a little bit to figure out what problem they're talking about when they say this problem, and that will take us all the way back to the first sentence. The problem is that this company's supply chain is going to develop significant weaknesses unless we change our vendor contracts now. So the conclusion of the argument is that entire first chunk, waiting to make changes to the vendor contracts is a bad idea.
Don't put them off just because they're really far in the future. The evidence for that is just the example that they give or the analogy that they give after that. They compare it to being a financial planner. And they say, suppose that a financial planner offered the same advice to a 30-year-old saying, don't worry, retirement's a long way away.
That would be a really bad financial planner. And thus, by implication, waiting to do the vendor change would be a really bad business decision. So now that we understand the conclusion, we go looking for it in the answer choices. First answer A, some people argued that the supply chain problem is so far in the future, there's no need to address it now.
This is a direct quote of part of the conclusion. This is just the approach that the author opposes, it's not the thing that the author is arguing. We need both the stuff above it and below it to be the conclusion. So answer choice B, you would be irresponsible to postpone changes to the vendor contracts just because the supply chain will not develop weaknesses for a long time.
This is our conclusion. Each part of the original conclusion is represented in the answer choice. So it would be irresponsible, that's an irresponsible approach. To postpone the changes, there's no need to address it today. The changes to what? Our vendor contracts.
And just because it won't develop a weakness for a long time, that was the argument the problem is so far in the future. So each part of the original conclusion is represented in the answer choice. This is definitely what we wanted. So then what's wrong with the other answers? Well answer choice C is like answer choice A, it's just part of the conclusion.
In this case, the problem the author is trying to describe how we should solve. The conclusion isn't that there is a problem, but rather we need to address it now instead of waiting. Answer choice D is actually not something the argument says at all. Here it even does say that you shouldn't put things off just like you shouldn't put things off in the financial area, but it doesn't say that you should follow the same practices.
And then answer choice E, this is a garbled version of what they told us. The argument says it's a good idea to plan for your retirement today. It doesn't say that you should only plan for your retirement if it's a long way away. It's actually the planning is important even though it's a long way away, not only when it's a long way away.
So since E confuses stuff, it's not the answer. And of course, it's not the conclusion, so it's not the answer. So at the end of the day, the answer was answer choice B.
Read full transcriptHere the conclusion begins sort of in the middle of the argument. That is an irresponsible approach. Of course, we need to read the sentence before that to figure out what is the irresponsible approach. And the irresponsible approach is that some people argue that this problem is so far in the future, there's no need to address it today.
Of course we also need to go back a little bit to figure out what problem they're talking about when they say this problem, and that will take us all the way back to the first sentence. The problem is that this company's supply chain is going to develop significant weaknesses unless we change our vendor contracts now. So the conclusion of the argument is that entire first chunk, waiting to make changes to the vendor contracts is a bad idea.
Don't put them off just because they're really far in the future. The evidence for that is just the example that they give or the analogy that they give after that. They compare it to being a financial planner. And they say, suppose that a financial planner offered the same advice to a 30-year-old saying, don't worry, retirement's a long way away.
That would be a really bad financial planner. And thus, by implication, waiting to do the vendor change would be a really bad business decision. So now that we understand the conclusion, we go looking for it in the answer choices. First answer A, some people argued that the supply chain problem is so far in the future, there's no need to address it now.
This is a direct quote of part of the conclusion. This is just the approach that the author opposes, it's not the thing that the author is arguing. We need both the stuff above it and below it to be the conclusion. So answer choice B, you would be irresponsible to postpone changes to the vendor contracts just because the supply chain will not develop weaknesses for a long time.
This is our conclusion. Each part of the original conclusion is represented in the answer choice. So it would be irresponsible, that's an irresponsible approach. To postpone the changes, there's no need to address it today. The changes to what? Our vendor contracts.
And just because it won't develop a weakness for a long time, that was the argument the problem is so far in the future. So each part of the original conclusion is represented in the answer choice. This is definitely what we wanted. So then what's wrong with the other answers? Well answer choice C is like answer choice A, it's just part of the conclusion.
In this case, the problem the author is trying to describe how we should solve. The conclusion isn't that there is a problem, but rather we need to address it now instead of waiting. Answer choice D is actually not something the argument says at all. Here it even does say that you shouldn't put things off just like you shouldn't put things off in the financial area, but it doesn't say that you should follow the same practices.
And then answer choice E, this is a garbled version of what they told us. The argument says it's a good idea to plan for your retirement today. It doesn't say that you should only plan for your retirement if it's a long way away. It's actually the planning is important even though it's a long way away, not only when it's a long way away.
So since E confuses stuff, it's not the answer. And of course, it's not the conclusion, so it's not the answer. So at the end of the day, the answer was answer choice B.
