Critical Reasoning (CR) | Re: In the United States, nearly half of the whole blood received by blood

Devvkad

The phrasing here is weird. I don't think I've seen an official question that uses the term "overall conclusion" to refer to a set of conclusions made by the author. It's also weird that there is no one main conclusion, just a series of separate opinions.

However, ignoring the specific terminology for a moment, we can see that the author has presented 3 conclusions about paying for blood: 1) it's dangerous, 2) it's inefficient, and 3) it's too commercial. It might have been natural to tie these together with a main conclusion ("We shouldn't pay for blood donations"), but that never happens.

So what are the bold statements? The first bold is conclusion #1. The second bold is a supporting premise for conclusion #2. D is the only one that says anything like that, but it would be better if it said "one of the conclusions" and "support for another of the conclusions" rather than lumping them together into a nebulous "overall conclusion."
...

Statistics : Posted by DmitryFarber • on 26 Oct 2023, 01:30 • Replies 3 • Views 502

---