Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Bold: Newton & Leibniz ( A difficult one)

Expert replies
by tracyyahoo » Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:19 pm
Bold : Newton & Leibniz
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. 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. 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.In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

1.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.

2.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

3.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.

4.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.

5.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.


Well OA is D, why C is wrong, In second conclusion, it says that Leibuiz' notes are limited to early section of Newton's books, clearly it explains that Leibuiz doesn't copy the newton's, it should be against the first conclusion.

Why D???? Pls explain detailly!!!
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by badpoem » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:01 pm
"...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. 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."

The author talks about a conclusion that was drawn - "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false." and then goes on to criticise it by saying "A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however"
Then he gives evidence about why he is criticising the conclusion by stating the 2nd boldface.

Coming to the answer choices,

3.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. --> the part in bold is what does not match with the passage. Yes, the first part is true. It is an intermediate conclusion but the author does not defend that position. He supports it partially but moves on to state his conclusion. His conclusion and not the intermediate one is what he would defend.

4.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. --> Answer.

Hope this answers your question! :)
Join the discussion

by tracyyahoo » Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:11 pm
you still don't answer my question,

I know (3) is wrong. you don't have to explain.

My question is why the second bold face supports the first one?

It clearly says that Leibniz's notes are limited to early sections of Newton's book, that clearly says that Leibniz is impossible to copy the newton's book, it should against, why is support?

Pls answer this question, thank you so much.

badpoem wrote:"...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. 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."

The author talks about a conclusion that was drawn - "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false." and then goes on to criticise it by saying "A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however"
Then he gives evidence about why he is criticising the conclusion by stating the 2nd boldface.

Coming to the answer choices,

3.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. --> the part in bold is what does not match with the passage. Yes, the first part is true. It is an intermediate conclusion but the author does not defend that position. He supports it partially but moves on to state his conclusion. His conclusion and not the intermediate one is what he would defend.

4.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. --> Answer.

Hope this answers your question! :)
Join the discussion

by badpoem » Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:15 am
"My question is why the second bold face supports the first one?" - I am not sure what exactly you are referring to as the first one.

The first boldface provides the evidence for an intermediate conclusion or let us say, a conclusion that the author does not support wholeheartedly. Read the next line - A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however.

Let us analyse the passage. FYI, I shall be using the following to help you understand the direction of flow.
[-->] For
[<--] Against

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. [--->] Researchers have, however [Note the change], recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. 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. [<--] 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. [author's compromise to his conclusion]In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

Now coming to your question - "It clearly says that Leibniz's notes are limited to early sections of Newton's book, that clearly says that Leibniz is impossible to copy the newton's book, it should against, why is support?"

You have drawn the conclusion that you have mentioned. The author has offered a compromise and a new conclusion.
Join the discussion

by tracyyahoo » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:35 pm
Still don't understand...





quote="badpoem"]"My question is why the second bold face supports the first one?" - I am not sure what exactly you are referring to as the first one.

The first boldface provides the evidence for an intermediate conclusion or let us say, a conclusion that the author does not support wholeheartedly. Read the next line - A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however.

Let us analyse the passage. FYI, I shall be using the following to help you understand the direction of flow.
[-->] For
[<--] Against

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. [--->] Researchers have, however [Note the change], recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. 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. [<--] 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. [author's compromise to his conclusion]In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

Now coming to your question - "It clearly says that Leibniz's notes are limited to early sections of Newton's book, that clearly says that Leibniz is impossible to copy the newton's book, it should against, why is support?"

You have drawn the conclusion that you have mentioned. The author has offered a compromise and a new conclusion.[/quote]
Join the discussion

by navami » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:52 am
D
This time no looking back!!!
Navami
Join the discussion