I can't remember where I originally found these guidelines--they are an introduction to a relatively new type of CR question called boldface questions. Just some advice: don't freak out about them. While they are difficult, people often make the mistake of overemphasizing them. I only saw one on my GMAT, but I had spent so much time preparing for them needlessly...
***
One of the new question types in GMAT CAT is the bolded question in Critical Reasoning Section. In such argument, one or two sentences in stimulus are bolded. A sample question looks like this.
Something must be done to stop spam. In early days, people seldom received unsolicited email advertisement; but now that numerous bulk email software and email address finders are developed to collect email address all around the world. Advertisers use email addresses to market their products and even sell such email lists to other advertisers. As a result, almost everyone ever get junk email, and sometime several and even tens of annoying emails a day. So, relevant anti-spam regulations should be framed to stop unsolicited advertising.
The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. Background that the argument depends on and conclusion that can be drawn from the argument.
B. Part of evidence that the argument includes, and inference that can be drawn from this passage.
C. Pre-evidence that the argument depends on and part of evidence that supports the conclusion.
D. Background that argument depends on and part of evidence that supports the conclusion.
E. Pre-evidence that argument includes and a method that helps to supports that conclusion.
The question following requires you to identify the logical relationship between the boldfaced sentences, or how it relates to a particular position (the author agree or disagree).
Boldface question is totally new on computer-based test, but is easy to tackle. All you have to do is to understand the argument: identify the conclusion, evidence, and the reasoning from evidence to conclusion. Sometime, you are required to critique the validity of the argument.
How to approach Boldface Question
1.Identify the conclusion. Ask yourself what the conclusion is, what the author trying to prove, or what the author¡¯s main point is.
2.Look for the evidence that the author uses to support or argue against a position.
3. Search for argument indicator to determine the relationship between evidence and conclusion.
Conclusion Indicators
so
thus
therefore
as a result
consequently
accordingly
hence
imply
conclude that
follows that
means that
infer that
Premise Indicators
because
since
for
as
if
assume
suppose
evidence
on the basis of
the reason is that
may be derived from
in that
Counter-evidence Indicators
actually
despite
admittedly
except
even though
nonetheless
nevertheless
although
however
In spite of
do
may
4. Before you pick up the answer choices, make sure you did NOT mistake counter-evidence as evidence
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Boldface Questions
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
beatthegmat
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6773
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Thanked: 1249 times
- Followed by:994 members
Last edited by beatthegmat on Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Beat The GMAT | The MBA Social Network
Community Management Team
Research Top GMAT Prep Courses:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-courses
Research The World's Top MBA Programs:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/school
Community Management Team
Research Top GMAT Prep Courses:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-courses
Research The World's Top MBA Programs:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/school
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
beatthegmat
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6773
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Thanked: 1249 times
- Followed by:994 members
The answer is A. The first boldface provides the background that regulations were not needed in the early days. The second boldface provides the conclusion that regulation is now needed to stop unsolicited e-mails.
Beat The GMAT | The MBA Social Network
Community Management Team
Research Top GMAT Prep Courses:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-courses
Research The World's Top MBA Programs:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/school
Community Management Team
Research Top GMAT Prep Courses:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-courses
Research The World's Top MBA Programs:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/school
-
aim-wsc
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:09 pm
- Location: BtG Underground
- Thanked: 85 times
- Followed by:14 members
it's very informative post.
thanks.
i dont believe that i am seeing such a question for the first time.
...must have been very rare type.
at first i find it quite difficult.. rather different.
but then thanks to the strat u hv given.. it seems piece o cake now.
anyways
Thanks once again
thanks.
i dont believe that i am seeing such a question for the first time.
...must have been very rare type.
at first i find it quite difficult.. rather different.
but then thanks to the strat u hv given.. it seems piece o cake now.
anyways
Thanks once again
Hey do you have any more questions of this type?beatthegmat wrote:The answer is A. The first boldface provides the background that regulations were not needed in the early days. The second boldface provides the conclusion that regulation is now needed to stop unsolicited e-mails.
Thanks
-
Psychodementia
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:09 pm
- Location: Bangalore
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
countingdolls
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:07 am
-
Psychodementia
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:09 pm
- Location: Bangalore
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
nileshdalvi
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
The Answer is A.
First thing to be noted here is that the Argument is that:
Argument:
"Something must be done to stop spam".
Conclusion:
"Anti-spam regulations are should be framed to stop unsolicited advertising(spam)".
Premise 1:
"In early days, people seldom received unsolicited email advertisement"
Premise 2 and Evidence:
"numerous bulk email software and email address finders are developed to collect email address all around the world. Advertisers use email addresses to market their products and even sell such email lists to other advertisers."
Premise 2 can be paraphrased to how spam spreads which is not of much concern to us as we need to compare the boldface statements.
Now lets perform analysis:
Analysis:
A: Previously emails were received seldomly is background of the "Argument" mentioned above. Since Argument is that spam sholud be stopped and conclusion is framing anti-spam regulations, clearly "Seldom spam reception in early days" providing a background for the argument and the reason why conclusion is arrived on. Please note here that Background is not a separate entity in CR Domain but a part of premise. Here Background is Premise 1.
And second boldface is clearly a conclusion. Anmy explanations needed??
B: Part of Evidence that Argument Includes: Previously spam were not received is not an evidence that spam should be stopped. Bulk Email Softwares and Email Finders as well as selling of information are evidence that the spam must be stopped.
Inference of Argument is that spam must be stopped. This is the Answer where one of the related sections is right. i.e the second boldface matches and not the first. This is a trap.
C: "Spam was seldomly received earlier" is not an evidence or pre-evidence of any sort to the argument that "Spam should be stopped. Please make yourself clear of the meaning of evidence....
e.g Company made profits earlier. Company's marketing strategies did not suit the current market trends. Hence, the company incurred loss.
Pleas note that company made profits earlier is not an evidence to the Argument that it incurred loss. Hope this makes the point crystal clear.
Second boldface is clearly conclusion and nothing of sort "part of evidence that supports the conclusion."
D: Again a trap. First boldface matches but second is conclusion and not part of evidence.
E: I dont think I need to explain this.
The other options are a combination of
1 right 2 wrong (D).
2 right 1 wrong (B)
1 wrong 2 wrong (C and E).
Hope this helps and thanks for introducing such a new question type.
First thing to be noted here is that the Argument is that:
Argument:
"Something must be done to stop spam".
Conclusion:
"Anti-spam regulations are should be framed to stop unsolicited advertising(spam)".
Premise 1:
"In early days, people seldom received unsolicited email advertisement"
Premise 2 and Evidence:
"numerous bulk email software and email address finders are developed to collect email address all around the world. Advertisers use email addresses to market their products and even sell such email lists to other advertisers."
Premise 2 can be paraphrased to how spam spreads which is not of much concern to us as we need to compare the boldface statements.
Now lets perform analysis:
Analysis:
A: Previously emails were received seldomly is background of the "Argument" mentioned above. Since Argument is that spam sholud be stopped and conclusion is framing anti-spam regulations, clearly "Seldom spam reception in early days" providing a background for the argument and the reason why conclusion is arrived on. Please note here that Background is not a separate entity in CR Domain but a part of premise. Here Background is Premise 1.
And second boldface is clearly a conclusion. Anmy explanations needed??
B: Part of Evidence that Argument Includes: Previously spam were not received is not an evidence that spam should be stopped. Bulk Email Softwares and Email Finders as well as selling of information are evidence that the spam must be stopped.
Inference of Argument is that spam must be stopped. This is the Answer where one of the related sections is right. i.e the second boldface matches and not the first. This is a trap.
C: "Spam was seldomly received earlier" is not an evidence or pre-evidence of any sort to the argument that "Spam should be stopped. Please make yourself clear of the meaning of evidence....
e.g Company made profits earlier. Company's marketing strategies did not suit the current market trends. Hence, the company incurred loss.
Pleas note that company made profits earlier is not an evidence to the Argument that it incurred loss. Hope this makes the point crystal clear.
Second boldface is clearly conclusion and nothing of sort "part of evidence that supports the conclusion."
D: Again a trap. First boldface matches but second is conclusion and not part of evidence.
E: I dont think I need to explain this.
The other options are a combination of
1 right 2 wrong (D).
2 right 1 wrong (B)
1 wrong 2 wrong (C and E).
Hope this helps and thanks for introducing such a new question type.
