Journalist: Every election year at this time the state government releases the financial disclosures that potential candidates must make in order to be eligible to run for office. Among those making the required financial disclosure this year is prominent local businessman, Arnold Bergeron. There has often been talk in the past of Mr. Bergeron's running for governor, not least from Mr. Bergeron himself. This year it is likely he finally will, since those who have discounted the possibility of a Bergeron candidacy have always pointed to the necessity of making financial disclosure as the main obstacle to such a candidacy.
In the journalist's argument the boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
a) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
b) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force; the second states an intermediate conclusion that is used to support a further conclusion.
c) The first sites a practice that the journalist seeks to defend; the second sites a likely consequence of this practice.
d) The first states evidence bearing against the main conclusion of the argument; the second is that main conclusion.
e) Each provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that supports a further conclusion stated in the argument.
OA A
Source: GMAT Prep
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Journalist: Every election year at this time the state gover
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
The goal in any BOLDFACE question is to deconstruct the argument, and determine the role of each statement:
- author's conclusion / position
- reasoning that supports the author's position
- the counterpoint / what others believe
- support for the counterpoint
- neutral / background information / establishing phenomenon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's break down this journalist's argument:
Journalist's conclusion:
This year it is likely Mr. Bergeron finally will run for governor.
Reasoning:
- Every election year at this time the state government releases the financial disclosures that potential candidates must make in order to be eligible to run for office.
- Bergeron made the required financial disclosure this year
- In the past, those who have discounted the possibility of a Bergeron candidacy have always pointed to the necessity of making financial disclosure as the main obstacle to such a candidacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we label the boldface portions according to this breakdown:
Boldface 1: "Every election year at this time the state government releases the financial disclosures that potential candidates must make in order to be eligible to run for office."
= a general FACT that the journalist uses to SUPPORT her/his argument
Boldface 2: "This year it is likely he finally will"
= the journalist's CONCLUSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip for boldface questions: When looking at answer choices, just look at the 1st part first, and eliminate answers. Then look at the 2nd part of the answers that remain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the 1st part of each answer choice, we're looking for = a general FACT that the journalist uses to SUPPORT her/his argument
a) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force...
- Personally, I find the term "force" here is a bit vague/weak. Without the information from the 1st bold, we'd have no basis for the conclusion whatsoever. But... we can't rule this out. The argument would certainly lack force without this fact.
b) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force...
- Same as A. Keep it.
c) The first sites a practice that the journalist seeks to defend...
- The journalist is offering no opinion on the practice itself. She/he is simply drawing a conclusion from Bergeron's behavior related to this practice. Eliminate . C.
d) The first states evidence bearing against the main conclusion of the argument...
- No. This fact helps the journalist's argument, not hurts it. Eliminate D.
e) Each provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that supports a further conclusion stated in the argument.
- There is really only one conclusion in the argument: the 2nd bold. So we can eliminate E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we have eliminated C, D, and E, we only have to look at the 2nd parts of A and B. We're looking for Bold 2 = the journalist's conclusion
a) ... the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
- Exactly what we're looking for.
b) ... the second states an intermediate conclusion that is used to support a further conclusion.
- No, there is no further conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer is A.
- author's conclusion / position
- reasoning that supports the author's position
- the counterpoint / what others believe
- support for the counterpoint
- neutral / background information / establishing phenomenon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's break down this journalist's argument:
Journalist's conclusion:
This year it is likely Mr. Bergeron finally will run for governor.
Reasoning:
- Every election year at this time the state government releases the financial disclosures that potential candidates must make in order to be eligible to run for office.
- Bergeron made the required financial disclosure this year
- In the past, those who have discounted the possibility of a Bergeron candidacy have always pointed to the necessity of making financial disclosure as the main obstacle to such a candidacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we label the boldface portions according to this breakdown:
Boldface 1: "Every election year at this time the state government releases the financial disclosures that potential candidates must make in order to be eligible to run for office."
= a general FACT that the journalist uses to SUPPORT her/his argument
Boldface 2: "This year it is likely he finally will"
= the journalist's CONCLUSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip for boldface questions: When looking at answer choices, just look at the 1st part first, and eliminate answers. Then look at the 2nd part of the answers that remain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the 1st part of each answer choice, we're looking for = a general FACT that the journalist uses to SUPPORT her/his argument
a) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force...
- Personally, I find the term "force" here is a bit vague/weak. Without the information from the 1st bold, we'd have no basis for the conclusion whatsoever. But... we can't rule this out. The argument would certainly lack force without this fact.
b) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force...
- Same as A. Keep it.
c) The first sites a practice that the journalist seeks to defend...
- The journalist is offering no opinion on the practice itself. She/he is simply drawing a conclusion from Bergeron's behavior related to this practice. Eliminate . C.
d) The first states evidence bearing against the main conclusion of the argument...
- No. This fact helps the journalist's argument, not hurts it. Eliminate D.
e) Each provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that supports a further conclusion stated in the argument.
- There is really only one conclusion in the argument: the 2nd bold. So we can eliminate E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we have eliminated C, D, and E, we only have to look at the 2nd parts of A and B. We're looking for Bold 2 = the journalist's conclusion
a) ... the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
- Exactly what we're looking for.
b) ... the second states an intermediate conclusion that is used to support a further conclusion.
- No, there is no further conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer is A.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
For more on using this strategy for BOLDFACE questions on CR, see:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/most-of-wes ... tml#823603
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818265
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818059
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818656
https://www.beatthegmat.com/although-th ... tml#821876
https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-2018-cr- ... tml#796614
https://www.beatthegmat.com/most-of-wes ... tml#823603
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818265
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818059
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818656
https://www.beatthegmat.com/although-th ... tml#821876
https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-2018-cr- ... tml#796614
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Option A :- CORRECT
This option is correct because the first boldface portion plays the role of the backbone of the argument, it is the most important information of the whole argument. It explains that the state government releases the financial disclosure that the potential candidate must make in order to be eligible to run for office, without which the argument lacks force .
The second bold face portion is the main conclusion that Mr. Bergeron will likely run this year since his major obstacle before now is the financial disclosure to which the eligibility of his candidacy lies.
Option B :- INCORRECT
This option is close to being correct but later lost its way . The first boldface portion is correct according to this option, while the second boldface portion is nothing but a conclusion to the argument itself, it shows how important the financial disclosure is and isn't an intermediate conclusion that is used to support further conclusion.
Option C :- INCORRECT
The first boldface portion isn't a practice the journalist seeks to defend but a necessity that needs to be fulfilled to be eligible to run office. While the second boldface portion isn't a consequence of this necessity but a conclusion of the argument. The second boldface portion explains how making financial disclosure can be an obstacle to a candidate, it doesn't make it a consequence.
Option D :- INCORRECT This option believes that the first boldface plays the role of evidence against the main conclusion of the argument. Well this is wrong because the first argument plays the role of the main fact in the argument and the conclusion comes after this. The second boldface portion in this option is correct because it is the main conclusion of the argument.
Option E :- INCORRECT
Each of the boldface isn't playing the role of an evidence to support an intermediate conclusion in the argument. The role that boldface portions play is that of the main information which is needed and a conclusion to the argument respectively.
This option is correct because the first boldface portion plays the role of the backbone of the argument, it is the most important information of the whole argument. It explains that the state government releases the financial disclosure that the potential candidate must make in order to be eligible to run for office, without which the argument lacks force .
The second bold face portion is the main conclusion that Mr. Bergeron will likely run this year since his major obstacle before now is the financial disclosure to which the eligibility of his candidacy lies.
Option B :- INCORRECT
This option is close to being correct but later lost its way . The first boldface portion is correct according to this option, while the second boldface portion is nothing but a conclusion to the argument itself, it shows how important the financial disclosure is and isn't an intermediate conclusion that is used to support further conclusion.
Option C :- INCORRECT
The first boldface portion isn't a practice the journalist seeks to defend but a necessity that needs to be fulfilled to be eligible to run office. While the second boldface portion isn't a consequence of this necessity but a conclusion of the argument. The second boldface portion explains how making financial disclosure can be an obstacle to a candidate, it doesn't make it a consequence.
Option D :- INCORRECT This option believes that the first boldface plays the role of evidence against the main conclusion of the argument. Well this is wrong because the first argument plays the role of the main fact in the argument and the conclusion comes after this. The second boldface portion in this option is correct because it is the main conclusion of the argument.
Option E :- INCORRECT
Each of the boldface isn't playing the role of an evidence to support an intermediate conclusion in the argument. The role that boldface portions play is that of the main information which is needed and a conclusion to the argument respectively.
