Banking industry visionaries foresee

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposing Idea1% picked this

   In the near future, bank customers will be able to transact all their financial business by means of computers or

   This answer restates the opposing view presented in the first sentence of the argument — the banking industry's optimistic vision of home banking. The author introduces this view only to push back against it with "but." The conclusion is the author's own position, not the position being challenged. This answer captures the setup, not the punchline.

   1%
2. B

   Correct90% picked this

   Enabling bank customers to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes may be more beneficial

   Why this is right

   This answer accurately paraphrases the author's conclusion from the second sentence. The author states that home banking "may be more of a paradise for banks than for their customers." This answer restates that idea: enabling home banking "may be more beneficial to banks than to their customers." The wording is different but the meaning is identical — a comparative claim that home banking disproportionately serves banks' interests. This is exactly what a correct Main Conclusion answer should do: capture the same idea in slightly different language.

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   90%
3. C

   Premise6% picked this

   As banks eliminate branch offices and customer service employees, bank customers will have to serve as their own

   This answer restates the evidence from the third sentence of the argument. The fact that customers will serve as their own tellers and pay more fees is the reason the author believes home banking benefits banks more than customers. It is the support for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. In the argument's structure, this information explains why the author holds the view expressed in the second sentence.

   6%
4. D

   Too Specific2% picked this

   Eliminating branch offices and customer-service employees would benefit the

   This answer captures only half of the conclusion. The author's point is comparative — home banking benefits banks more than customers. This answer only addresses the bank side: eliminating branches would benefit banks. It omits the customer side entirely and drops the crucial comparison. The conclusion is not just that banks will benefit; it is that banks will benefit more than customers will. Additionally, the conclusion is about the broader phenomenon of home banking, not just about eliminating branch offices specifically.

   2%
5. E

   Word Salad1% picked this

   Enabling customers to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from their own homes would allow banks to

   This answer cobbles together language from different parts of the argument without accurately representing any single claim the author makes. It connects home banking to the elimination of branches and employees, blending the opposing view (home banking) with the evidence (eliminating branches) into a causal claim the author never explicitly states. The conclusion is about who benefits more from home banking, not about what home banking enables banks to do. This answer sounds like it could be part of the argument, but it does not match the actual conclusion.

   1%