Critical Reasoning

Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Village census records for the last half of the 1600's are remarkably complete. This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village's population from government census takers would have been easy. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen.

In the historian's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first supplies a context for the historian's argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.

B. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.

C. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.

D. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.

E. The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.

OA: C

P.S: Verbal Experts - I'm having a tough time in understanding this difficult ARGUMENT properly. Could you please help me decode it ?
Also, please share your analysis,especially, for [spoiler]C & E[/spoiler].

Premise : increase in taxes caused villagers to report low population count, intentionally. They had some economic incentive in doing so.

Conclusion: the reported population decline never happened.

Now, if u see the options, only c says tht the second boldface is a conclusion.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Village census records for the last half of the 1600's are remarkably complete. This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village's population from government census takers would have been easy. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen.

In the historian's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first supplies a context for the historian's argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.

B. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.

C. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.

D. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.

E. The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.

OA: C

P.S: Verbal Experts - I'm having a tough time in understanding this difficult ARGUMENT properly. Could you please help me decode it ?
Also, please share your analysis,especially, for [spoiler]C & E[/spoiler].

Here's the argument boiled way down.

The historical record is comprehensive. Any time the tax increased, the reported population decreased. The tax level was determined by population level. Therefore the reported population declines were inaccurate.

You could simply see that the second bold is the main conclusion of the argument. ("Therefore" is a giveaway.) Evaluating all the answer choices, only C is consistent with this interpretation of the second bold.

Both components of E have problems. The assertion that the historical record is complete isn't an assumption. It's a fact. Historians either possess census records of most years or they don't. The second part is problematic as well. First, no one is disputing the completeness of the historical record. It's the accuracy of the record that's being challenged. Second, a consideration would be some kind of context or evidence. This isn't a consideration. it's an opinion/position/conclusion.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:The historical record is comprehensive. Any time the tax increased, the reported population decreased. The tax level was determined by population level. Therefore the reported population declines were inaccurate.

You could simply see that the second bold is the main conclusion of the argument. ("Therefore" is a giveaway.) Evaluating all the answer choices, only C is consistent with this interpretation of the second bold.

Both components of E have problems. The assertion that the historical record is complete isn't an assumption. It's a fact. Historians either possess census records of most years or they don't. The second part is problematic as well. First, no one is disputing the completeness of the historical record. It's the accuracy of the record that's being challenged. Second, a consideration would be some kind of context or evidence. This isn't a consideration. it's an opinion/position/conclusion.

Hi Dave,
Though I got you here, few clarifications required -

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).

Could you please clarify this part ?

2. BF1 seems to be author's JUDGEMENT because of the word "remarkably" (it's NOT the HARD FACT, I guess!). Isn't so ?

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.

2. BF1 seems to be author's JUDGEMENT because of the word "remarkably" (it's NOT the HARD FACT, I guess!). Isn't so ?

I suppose you're right that the use of the word "remarkably" has a subjective connotation. What feels remarkable to one person might not to another. But here it seems to suggest that 1) there is very little census data missing from this time and 2) this is somewhat surprising as we're talking about data from 400 years ago. These assertions are concrete enough to qualify as part of the context of the argument.

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 is (although there is NO DIRECT support, I guess) Drindian tax increased immediately after a decline in the population was reported. What else ?

And in a BF CR, the term consideration will ALWAYS IMPLY some kind of context or evidence. Did I get you right ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

2. BF1 seems to be author's JUDGEMENT because of the word "remarkably" (it's NOT the HARD FACT, I guess!). Isn't so ?

I suppose you're right that the use of the word "remarkably" has a subjective connotation. What feels remarkable to one person might not to another. But here it seems to suggest that 1) there is very little census data missing from this time and 2) this is somewhat surprising as we're talking about data from 400 years ago. These assertions are concrete enough to qualify as part of the context of the argument.

So, basically a JUDGEMENT like statement can be considered the context of the argument, depending on the BF CR we're dealing with ?

So, basically a JUDGEMENT like statement can be considered the context of the argument, depending on the BF CR we're dealing with ?

Well, anything can be context. But here, it's important to note that the judgment is an evaluation of a fact. The fact: we have most of the census data from this time period. The judgment: it is remarkable that we have this much data. The judgment is far less important than the fact. In other words, even if it weren't remarkable that we have as much evidence as we do, it wouldn't alter the texture of the argument.

Thanks Dave!

Could you please share your feedback on these concerns - https://www.beatthegmat.com/historian-i ... tml#789158 ?

Much thanks in advance!

And in a BF CR, the term consideration will ALWAYS IMPLY some kind of context or evidence. Did I get you right ?

Well, I hesitate to say "always" as consideration could mean something akin to "careful deliberation." But the examples I was able to dig up quickly did use 'consideration' to mean context or evidence one might take into account. Here's one: https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-bold-face ... tml#365881.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:And in a BF CR, the term 'consideration' will MOSTLY/GENERALLY IMPLY some kind of context or evidence. Did I get you right ?

Well, I hesitate to say "always" as consideration could mean something akin to "careful deliberation." But the examples I was able to dig up quickly did use 'consideration' to mean context or evidence one might take into account. Here's one: https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-bold-fac ... tml#365881.

I hear you here...I think, as I tweak the bottom-line (please refer to my above quote in RED), now it should look good. Right ?

Btw, "careful deliberation" with reference to GMAT CR, I guess will mean sort of JUDGEMENT/OPINION. Thoughts ?

I hear you here...I think, as I tweak the bottom-line (please refer to my above quote in RED), now it should look good. Right ?

Looks good to me

Btw, "careful deliberation" with reference to GMAT CR, I guess will mean sort of JUDGEMENT/OPINION. Thoughts ?

Offhand, I can't of any bold-face question in which some portion of the argument was described as "careful deliberation." The idea was more that "consideration" can have multiple meanings. But for what it's worth, I'd say that careful deliberation would precede an opinion, as one would weigh the two sides of an argument (deliberation) before rendering a verdict (conclusion.) Not something I'd worry about too much for the GMAT.

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 ?