Critical Reasoning

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

1. How EXACTLY the BF1 in the OA is correct ? It doesn't seem to support the CONCLUSION directly, (whereas GENERALLY in GMAT CR, we see that there exists pretty LINEAR and DIRECT relation between the EVIDENCE/PREMISE and the CONCLUSION).

The key is the use of the word "context" rather than "evidence." 'Context' is just a description of the circumstances in which something happens. It's more open-ended than evidence. Imagine you were investigating a murder. Everything you learn about the crime scene is context, even mundane elements such as the weather in which the crime was committed. But not everything you learn would qualify as evidence pointing to a particular suspect.

OK, So, which EVIDENCES arising from this CONTEXT are actually (DIRECTLY) supporting the CONCLUSION here ? One could be (although there is NO DIRECT support, I guess) Drindian tax increased immediately after a decline in the population was reported.

What else ?

Three interconnected pieces
1) each year the tax went up, the population went down
2) the government assessed taxes based on population size
3) concealing the population size would have been easy

Taken together, it's reasonable to conclude that the reported declines were attempts to minimize tax levels, rather than accurate depictions of the population level.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:So, which EVIDENCES arising from this CONTEXT are actually (DIRECTLY) supporting the CONCLUSION here ? One could be (although there is NO DIRECT support, I guess) Drindian tax increased immediately after a decline in the population was reported.

What else ?

Three interconnected pieces
1) each year the tax went up, the population went down
2) the government assessed taxes based on population size
3) concealing the population size would have been easy

Taken together, it's reasonable to conclude that the reported declines were attempts to minimize tax levels, rather than accurate depictions of the population level.

Yes, exactly - I got you here!

However, my SPECIFIC concerns were :

ONLY the first EVIDENCE (in your list) seems to be arising from the CONTEXT (that Village census records are remarkably complete) and is actually INDIRECTLY supporting the CONCLUSION that such reported declines did not happen. Right ?

And the THIRD one in your list seems to be a JUDGEMENT/OPINION that is used as a support to this CONCLUSION. Am I correct ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:So, which EVIDENCES arising from this CONTEXT are actually (DIRECTLY) supporting the CONCLUSION here ? One could be (although there is NO DIRECT support, I guess) Drindian tax increased immediately after a decline in the population was reported.

What else ?

Three interconnected pieces
1) each year the tax went up, the population went down
2) the government assessed taxes based on population size
3) concealing the population size would have been easy

Taken together, it's reasonable to conclude that the reported declines were attempts to minimize tax levels, rather than accurate depictions of the population level.

Yes, exactly - I got you here!

However, my SPECIFIC concerns were :

ONLY the first EVIDENCE (in your list) seems to be arising from the CONTEXT (that Village census records are remarkably complete) and is actually INDIRECTLY supporting the CONCLUSION that such reported declines did not happen. Right ?

And the THIRD one in your list seems to be a JUDGEMENT/OPINION that is used as a support to this CONCLUSION. Am I correct ?

I don't think this interpretation is unreasonable, but it's important to recognize that the language in C sets the bar pretty low: "The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position..." The census records alone don't have to supply all the evidence the author employs; it just has to provide some evidence that supports the author's position. The inverse relationship between reported population size and tax rate is surely evidence that supports the author's contention that the population decreases weren't accurate. Imagine there were spotty census records. Without the relationship between the tax rate and the population, it's hard to see how the argument would hold any water.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:Three interconnected pieces
1) each year the tax went up, the population went down
2) the government assessed taxes based on population size
3) concealing the population size would have been easy

Taken together, it's reasonable to conclude that the reported declines were attempts to minimize tax levels, rather than accurate depictions of the population level.

Yes, exactly - I got you here!

However, my SPECIFIC concerns were :

ONLY the first EVIDENCE (in your list) seems to be arising from the CONTEXT (that Village census records are remarkably complete) and is actually INDIRECTLY supporting the CONCLUSION that such reported declines did not happen. Right ?

And the THIRD one in your list seems to be a JUDGEMENT/OPINION that is used as a support to this CONCLUSION. Am I correct ?

I don't think this interpretation is unreasonable, but it's important to recognize that the language in C sets the bar pretty low: "The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position..." The census records alone don't have to supply all the evidence the author employs; it just has to provide some evidence that supports the author's position. The inverse relationship between reported population size and tax rate is surely evidence that supports the author's contention that the population increases weren't accurate. Imagine there were spotty census records. Without the relationship between the tax rate and the population, it's hard to see how the argument would hold any water.

Thanks for confirming (and sharing your detail thoughts)!

So, basically ALTHOUGH pretty RARE in GMAT CR , still sometimes some sort of JUDGEMENT/OPINION can be used as a support to the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT in situations in which this JUDGEMENT/OPINION is a part of the interconnected pieces of support statements that lead to the CONCLUSION. (as in this case the Sl. #3 does in your list, despite being a JUDGEMENT/OPINION)

Right ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:Three interconnected pieces
1) each year the tax went up, the population went down
2) the government assessed taxes based on population size
3) concealing the population size would have been easy

Taken together, it's reasonable to conclude that the reported declines were attempts to minimize tax levels, rather than accurate depictions of the population level.

Yes, exactly - I got you here!

However, my SPECIFIC concerns were :

ONLY the first EVIDENCE (in your list) seems to be arising from the CONTEXT (that Village census records are remarkably complete) and is actually INDIRECTLY supporting the CONCLUSION that such reported declines did not happen. Right ?

And the THIRD one in your list seems to be a JUDGEMENT/OPINION that is used as a support to this CONCLUSION. Am I correct ?

I don't think this interpretation is unreasonable, but it's important to recognize that the language in C sets the bar pretty low: "The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position..." The census records alone don't have to supply all the evidence the author employs; it just has to provide some evidence that supports the author's position. The inverse relationship between reported population size and tax rate is surely evidence that supports the author's contention that the population increases weren't accurate. Imagine there were spotty census records. Without the relationship between the tax rate and the population, it's hard to see how the argument would hold any water.

Thanks for confirming (and sharing your detail thoughts)!

So, basically ALTHOUGH pretty RARE in GMAT CR , still sometimes some sort of JUDGEMENT/OPINION can be used as a support to the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT in situations in which this JUDGEMENT/OPINION is a part of the interconnected pieces of support statements that lead to the CONCLUSION. (as in this case the Sl. #3 does in your list, despite being a JUDGEMENT/OPINION)

Right ?

Right.