Critical Reasoning

2.
Paleontologist: About 2.8 millions years ago ,many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided. However, temperature near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organism that lived closed to the surface & sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface depriving many bottom dwellers of food.

In the Paleontologist’s reasoning, the two portions in BOLDFACE play which of the following roles.

(A) The 1st introduce the hypothesis proposed by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is a judgment offer in spelling out the hypothesis.
(B) The 1st introduced the hypothesis proposed by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is a position that the Paleontologist opposes.
(C) The 1st is an explanation challenged by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is an explanation proposed by the Paleontologist.
(D) The 1st is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is that conclusion.
(E) The 1st is a generalization put forward by the Paleontologist, the 2nd presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.

Guys, I faced this Qs and chose E. But the OA is A. May be I am missing something. Can u guys tell me why A and how?

Ugh! I wish I could help, but I can't see the formatting. The words are all in regular font without anything highlighted in bold. It is just me?

Edited: for spelling....

Definitely need some boldface font!

Oops!Sorry for my mistake! I put the Qs in hurry. I missed. However, refer the modified Qs here -
Paleontologist: About 2.8 millions years ago ,many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided. However, temperature near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organism that lived closed to the surface & sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface depriving many bottom dwellers of food.

In the Paleontologist’s reasoning, the two portions in BOLDFACE play which of the following roles.

(A) The 1st introduce the hypothesis proposed by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is a judgment offer in spelling out the hypothesis.
(B) The 1st introduced the hypothesis proposed by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is a position that the Paleontologist opposes.
(C) The 1st is an explanation challenged by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is an explanation proposed by the Paleontologist.
(D) The 1st is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is that conclusion.
(E) The 1st is a generalization put forward by the Paleontologist, the 2nd presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.

Hope, this time the bold-faced sentences have come!

1st Statement = Conclusion: The cold probably caused the decline in population.
2nd Statement = Premise: Plankton suffered a decline in population b/c of the colder temperatures.

A) The 1st introduce the hypothesis proposed by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is a judgment offer in spelling out the hypothesis.
This is my AC. Fits nicely.

(B) The 1st introduced the hypothesis proposed by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is a position that the Paleontologist opposes.
Half right/wrong. The 2nd statement here is incorrect. It contradicts the paleontologist's statement.

(C) The 1st is an explanation challenged by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is an explanation proposed by the Paleontologist.
Half right/wrong. The 1st statement is incorrect. This is his conclusion, not his opponent's statement.

(D) The 1st is a judgment advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the Paleontologist, the 2nd is that conclusion.
This statement has everything reversed.

(E) The 1st is a generalization put forward by the Paleontologist, the 2nd presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold.
Eliminate: There are no counterexamples in his statement. Moreover, the paleontologist's statements aren't strong enough to warrant a generalization (i.e. "probably" and "most probably")

Please type the questions and answers in carefully - it took me a few minutes to realize that the word "offer" in (a) should be "offered", which makes the answer actually sensical!

The first bold statement is the authors general conclusion. The second bolded statement is a specific explanation of how that conclusion could be true. Only (a) matches that prediction.

(e) is wrong because the second bolded statement isn't contrary to the first, as (e) implies ("does not hold"); rather, the second bolded statement goes along with the first one just fine.

Sorry Stuart! Sorry for my miss. I will keep ur advice in mind ...

camitava wrote:Sorry Stuart! Sorry for my miss. I will keep ur advice in mind ...

I know its a pretty old thread... But this question belongs to GMATPREP and the OA is D! I too chose A!!



Edit: Sorry I think I oversaw... I chose D and A is the right answe indeed! Sorry again

The official answer is A. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain