Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds

[StaceyKoprince]

These types of arguments (boldface) almost always do have two conclusions - a conclusion and a counter-conclusion. What you need to do is to assess how the two boldface statements relate to each other. Are they on the same side of the fence - do they both "go with" just one of those conclusions? Or are they on opposite sides, does one go with the first conclusion and one go with the second? And are the boldface statements themselves classified as conclusions or as support for one of the conclusions?

That will get you to your answer!

[harishmullapudi]

Yes, I understand this Stacey. But my question is why can't we consider the second bold statement as a conclusion? It has a conclusion at the end and a supporting premise in the beginning.

In Ron's reply I see that he did not consider the second bold statement as conclusion and he eliminated options A and D for this reason.

[RonPurewal]

Yes, I understand this Stacey. But my question is why can't we consider the second bold statement as a conclusion? It has a conclusion at the end and a supporting premise in the beginning.

In Ron's reply I see that he did not consider the second bold statement as conclusion and he eliminated options A and D for this reason.

It's not a conclusion because ... well, because it's not a conclusion. I.e., there's no argument to support it.
In fact, most of the passage consists of considerations that weigh against it.

Analogy:
Martin is slow. He is also clumsy. Nevertheless, he will probably win this tournament.
--> The last sentence here is not a "conclusion" in any meaningful sense.

[RonPurewal]

--

When it comes to these problems, don't try to shoehorn the sentences into generic categories like "conclusion" and (especially) "premise". Even if you get those categories to work, they're usually too general to help. (E.g., there are all kinds of "conclusions". Predictions; explanations; judgments; etc. There are also lots of different kinds of "premises".) You should think of them as starting points for your understanding -- not as almighty categories that contain every idea of every argument in the whole world.

Instead, just pretend it's a normal human conversation, and ask yourself WHY the speaker is saying each thing. (You'll find that these problems are 10000000000 times easier if you think of them as normal conversation, rather than as some weird "academic" thing.)

In the passage about Martin above, the first two reasons are reasons that weigh against the idea that Martin will win. I.e., they are "considerations that weigh against the prediction".
Note two things: (i) It's really easy to formulate that, if you think of this as a conversation. (ii) These sentences don't fit neatly into any basic category -- they aren't really premises (since they aren't used to support anything), and they definitely aren't conclusions, counter-arguments, or background statements. So you're in trouble if you try to get those categories to work here.
The last thing is "a prediction", although I wouldn't really call it a conclusion.

[Khush]

Hi Ron,

Tough question has been very well explained in this forum.

I have just one more doubt.

In the correct answer choice C, the first Bold Faced sentence is referred to as "it presents a development ...".
Can we call a premise a "Development" ?

In another official question(OG-13 CR # 116) ,the official explanation also mentions "after the evidence is further developed...". However, the correct answer choice says "the first bold face provides evidence ..."..

[RonPurewal]

"Development" here means, roughly, the same thing as "situation" or "circumstance".

It's unrelated to "developing an argument", which is something that people deliberately do (= "constructing / propounding an argument"). A "development" = "situation" is something that is just true, or that just happens.

[Khush]

Thanks much Ron!

Got it !

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[manhhiep2509]

Hello.

Please comment whether my understanding is correct.

The first sentence is a background.
The second is a drawback.
The third is a potential outcome of the drawback-- The author use "would", so it seems that the author himself is not sure about the certainty of the outcome.
The fourth is the conclusion.

I read all the explanation of Ron and Stacey, but I still think that the fourth sentence is the conclusion.
The argument to me seems to say that even though the use of genetic engineering have some drawbacks, the author still believe it will be widespread.

I also find the argument is similar to arguments related to considering a plan. Sometime author gives drawbacks of the plan, but he still concludes that the plan will be successful because he assumes the plan, if carried out, will have some advantages that will compensate the drawbacks.
The argument that we are discussing does not assume but state clearly an advantage, i.e. consumer demand. Thus, I think the fourth is the conclusion.

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

Hello.

Please comment whether my understanding is correct.

The first sentence is a background.
The second is a drawback.
The third is a potential outcome of the drawback-- The author use "would", so it seems that the author himself is not sure about the certainty of the outcome.
The fourth is the conclusion.

For the first three statements, this is a pretty good summary. Ironically, it's also a perfect illustration of why the last statement is NOT "the conclusion of an argument".
For something to be meaningfully labeled as a "conclusion", it must follow from the other statements in the argument. That's what makes an "argument" in the first place: you have a conclusion that's supported by the rest of what is there.

Look at what you wrote here: The first statement just provides context, while the second and third are points against the last. So, the last statement is basically just tossed out there; it's not supported by the other statements at all.

[RonPurewal]

Also, in case you are trying to argue in favor of choice A, note that your own analysis (above) specifically eliminates the other part of that choice as well.

According to choice A, the second statement "gives a context". But, as you correctly noted above, it doesn't. The "context" is provided by the first statement; the second statement starts to get into the actual pros/cons debate, and is no longer just "context".

[supreet0405]

Hi Ron,

So you mean that a conclusion is not a conclusion if it is not supported anywhere in the argument. Only because the first 2 sentences are there to support the 3rd sentence, we deemed the 3 sentence as the conclusion.

My question is, what if the last sentence also had a premise/s to support the conclusion. Will then option A be correct?

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards,
Supreet Singh

[RonPurewal]

This argument doesn't have a "main conclusion" at all.

"Main conclusion" is only a thing if the entire argument is aimed at proving/establishing some statement. (Visually, imagine being able to draw arrows from all the other statements to the big final conclusion. Following any arrow would lead you, eventually, to the big conclusion.)

That's not what happens here. What happens here is, basically, "Here are some things. Normally, the consequence of these things would be xxxx. However, yyyy [which, as you can see, leads us to think that xxxx might not happen]".

For choice A to have any currency, you'd have to construct an entirely different argument.

[RonPurewal]

More importantly—
Don't try to edit GMAC's CR passages.

Really. Don't. It never works out well.

(Anyone who can edit GMAC's CR passages in a way that consistently works——and, more importantly, in a way that simulates the actual test——will already be getting just about all of the CR problems correct.)