The question stem says, which of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?

So this is a main conclusion question.

Let's identify the line that we think is the main conclusion, and then look for the answer that best restates that line.

This company's supply chain will develop significant weaknesses unless we make changes to our vendor contracts now.

So in other words, in order to avoid these weaknesses, we need to make changes to our vendor contracts now.

Now that does sound like a potential conclusion.

So if the rest of this argument gives us reasons why we should believe that we need to make the changes now in order to avoid weaknesses,

then that would be the conclusion.

But let's see what we get.

We're told that some will argue that this problem,

which I guess is a reference to the problem of the potential weaknesses unless we change our vendor contracts,

some will argue that this problem is so far in the future that there is no need to address it today.

So that's other people's position.

But that is an irresponsible approach.

Here the author is saying that the approach of waiting until later to address the problem, that's irresponsible.

And now potentially this line actually could be the conclusion,

because this is the author giving a criticism of the other people's view.

And in many, many cases, in fact the vast majority of cases,

when the author criticizes someone else's view, that criticism is the main conclusion.

So when I read the rest of this, I'm going to be thinking,

do we get reasoning for why the approach of waiting to solve the problem is irresponsible?

Let's see.

Just imagine if a financial planner offered the same counsel, so same advice, to a 30-year-old client.

Don't worry, Jane, retirement is 35 years away.

You don't need to save anything now.

That planner would be guilty of gross malpractice.

So this is an analogy that the author is offering in order to show that it's irresponsible to just say that,

well, the problem's so far in the future, so we don't need to address it today.

The author's saying, look, if you use the same line of reasoning in a different situation,

that wouldn't make sense, that would be absurd.

And so because it would be absurd in that situation, I think in this situation, it's an irresponsible approach.

That's what makes me determine that this line, that is an irresponsible approach, is the conclusion,

because we have support being offered for it.

Now sometimes people are very tempted into thinking the first sentence is the main conclusion,

and I will agree that when you first read it, it sounds like a potential conclusion.

But the problem is, the rest of the stimulus does not offer any support for the first sentence.

If you think the first sentence is the main conclusion,

you have to be able to point to reasoning that is designed to show that the first sentence is true.

But if you ask the author, why should I believe that the supply chain will develop significant weaknesses

unless we make changes to our vendor contracts now?

You can't point to any other line that's evidence of that.

It doesn't make sense to say, oh, the reason the first sentence is true

is because that's an irresponsible approach, waiting until the future is an irresponsible approach.

That's why the supply chain will develop weaknesses unless we change contracts now.

That doesn't make sense, because the claim that that is an irresponsible approach

is itself referencing the idea that some people want to wait to solve the problem described in the first sentence.

So the issue of whether we should wait until the future or whether that's irresponsible

is basically already assuming that it's true that the supply chain will develop weaknesses

unless we change the vendor contracts.

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that this irresponsible line is support for the first sentence.

What's really going on here is, the first sentence you could think of really as context.

I think sometimes people might identify as a premise, maybe you could argue it is,

but I actually view it more as context.

We're going to have weaknesses unless we change our vendor contracts now.

This is something the author believes is true.

Now, some people actually disagree with that,

and they think that the weaknesses are not going to come until much later,

so why do we have to address the problem now?

But then the author criticizes the line of reasoning that other people are using

to say that we should wait.

The author's saying it's irresponsible to think that just because the problem's in the future,

it's okay to wait.

And the analogy offered is designed to prove the irresponsibility of waiting.

It's not designed to prove that we're going to develop weaknesses

unless we change the contracts now.

This is just something the author is basically already assuming is true,

and then now the author's criticizing someone's response to that problem in the first sentence.

So that's why when we go to these answers, I'm looking for an answer that matches

that is an irresponsible approach.

Waiting until the future to solve the problem is irresponsible.

That's what I'm looking for.

So that's just describing someone else's view.

That's not the main conclusion.

That's exactly right.

That's what it means to say that that is an irresponsible approach.

It's irresponsible to wait until later to change the vendor contracts

just because the weaknesses won't come until the future.

So B is a great match for the bracketed line.

That's why it's correct.

C matches up to the first sentence here,

but as I explained earlier, that's not the main conclusion.

Even though it initially sounds like it is,

the rest of the argument just goes in a different direction.

Now you could say that this is an assumption of the author's argument

because in using this analogy here,

the author's assuming that the situation is similar to

how our business should approach things.

But that doesn't make D a conclusion.

An assumption of the argument is not the main conclusion.

And so even if you think the author agrees with D,

that doesn't make it correct.

Well, look, this answer is just about the analogy.

But the actual conclusion is not about

what a retirement advisor should say,

what a financial planner should say.

So that's why E is wrong.