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.

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