BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

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.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
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
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start 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

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

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