Bold face - CR

Hi Karthik:

To do this question, we have to figure out the historian's own position and compare and contrast it with the scholars position.

Let's look at the clauses preceding the two bold-faced clauses. I am going to underline the things I paid attention to while going over this question and italicize key words.

1. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques , it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false.

I.
The clause "Several scholars have argued that since" and the next "and since" show that:
a. The historian is evaluating a claim by several scholars.
b. The bold face is those scholars' evidence in support of their argument

The final underline "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false" shows that:
c. Several scholars position is the first one "traditional view is false". So to solidify our position, we need to find the traditional view.Fortunately, it was given to us in the third line, "
It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent."
d. Hence, we (the GMAT hopeful) know that the scholar's are disputing the traditional view that discoveries of calculus by Newton and Leibniz were independent.

II.
Now we're onto the second bold-faced clause.
A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

Here again from the underlined section preceding the bold-faced one, we see that the historian is challenging the scholar's position that was established in I, since:
a. He/she asks for a more cautious conclusion. This is evidenced also by the keyword "however" which shows that his position is different than that of the aforementioned scholars' position in I.
b. He/she then goes on to use the second bold face as evidence of his counter-claim.

Now that we know that scholars' position opposes the traditional view, and historian's position is opposite that of the scholars which means that he/she defends the traditional view. Keeping this is mind, let's examine the five choices.

A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
INCORRECT, since we know that the first one is position that historian opposes.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
INCORRECT, since we know that the first one is position that historian opposes.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
INCORRECT, since the first one does not provide support for the historian's position.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
CORRECT, for this is exactly what I conjectured above.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.
INCORRECT, for even though the first one is used to support the conclusion that the historian criticizes, the second one is not further information substantiating the first. Rather, it attacks the scholars' position.

Let me know if I got the answer right

OA is D

and your reasoning is absolutely right

eagleeye wrote:Hi Karthik:

To do this question, we have to figure out the historian's own position and compare and contrast it with the scholars position.

Let's look at the clauses preceding the two bold-faced clauses. I am going to underline the things I paid attention to while going over this question and italicize key words.

1. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques , it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false.

I.
The clause "Several scholars have argued that since" and the next "and since" show that:
a. The historian is evaluating a claim by several scholars.
b. The bold face is those scholars' evidence in support of their argument

The final underline "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false" shows that:
c. Several scholars position is the first one "traditional view is false". So to solidify our position, we need to find the traditional view.Fortunately, it was given to us in the third line, "
It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent."
d. Hence, we (the GMAT hopeful) know that the scholar's are disputing the traditional view that discoveries of calculus by Newton and Leibniz were independent.

II.
Now we're onto the second bold-faced clause.
A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

Here again from the underlined section preceding the bold-faced one, we see that the historian is challenging the scholar's position that was established in I, since:
a. He/she asks for a more cautious conclusion. This is evidenced also by the keyword "however" which shows that his position is different than that of the aforementioned scholars' position in I.
b. He/she then goes on to use the second bold face as evidence of his counter-claim.

Now that we know that scholars' position opposes the traditional view, and historian's position is opposite that of the scholars which means that he/she defends the traditional view. Keeping this is mind, let's examine the five choices.

A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
INCORRECT, since we know that the first one is position that historian opposes.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
INCORRECT, since we know that the first one is position that historian opposes.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
INCORRECT, since the first one does not provide support for the historian's position.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
CORRECT, for this is exactly what I conjectured above.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.
INCORRECT, for even though the first one is used to support the conclusion that the historian criticizes, the second one is not further information substantiating the first. Rather, it attacks the scholars' position.

Let me know if I got the answer right

for BF questions, normally we see one main conclusion and the other conclusion can be opposite conclusion or intermediate conclusion. main conclusion has its own evidence. other conclusion has its onw evidence. Be ready for this structure to quickly realize what the BF is and what relations the BF has.

pls, comment on my thinking.

for BF, time is the problem. but why some persons do BF quickly? anyone has any experience of doing BF, pls, comment.