Breaking Down a GMATPrep CR Boldface Problem
In recent weeks, weve tackled two of the three most frequent minor Critical Reasoning question types: Evaluate a Conclusion and Explain a Discrepancy. This week, were going for the hat trick, a GMATPrep question from the third of the three most frequent minor types: Analyze the Structure. (These are more commonly called boldface arguments because of the boldface text in the argument.)
Lets start with the problem. Set your timer for 2 minutes!
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiters atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiters outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiters outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiters outer atmosphere without being burned up.In the astronomers argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second part is that explanation.
(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weights against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
Okay, now that youve got an answer, were going to go back to the question stem and argument and forget about the answers for a moment. How do you identify the question type? What should you know about that question type before you even start to read the argument? What should you look for in the argument? What might your notes have looked like?
Reading the Question and Argument
First, if you havent already, you may want to take a look at this article: Strategies for Critical Reasoning.
As the article says, we read the question stem first. This is the question stem:
In the astronomers argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The key identifying language is pretty straightforward on this one. The most obvious clue is the word boldface in boldface font, though these wont all use that. The other clue is play which of the following roles a question that asks about the role some information is playing is an Analyze the Structure question.
What kind of information is found in Analyze the Structure questions and what are we supposed to do with that information?
"Analyze" questions ask us to determine what kind of role some certain piece of info (or two pieces of info) is playing in the argument. As with most arguments, this one will contain a conclusion, some supporting information, and potentially some contrasting or contradictory information (information that goes against the conclusion). These arguments may also contain some background information that neither supports nor goes against the conclusion.
One of the most annoying things about this question type is that the arguments tend to be long. The only redeeming quality: we dont need to understand completely every last thing in the argument. Our first goal is to find the conclusion. Then, we need to decide how each boldface statement relates to the conclusion thats it. We dont care much about the rest of the information we only need to understand enough to be able to accomplish our above goals.
In this argument, the first sentence tells us a fact: we know a certain comet broke into fragments, but we dont know how big those fragments were. So (sentence 2), astronomers studied something in order to try to find something out about the size. (Make this abstract its not the conclusion and its not boldface, so dont try to understand spectrographic analyses of Jupiters outer atmosphere.) The scientists found sulfur. Boldface: the fragments themselves probably didnt contain sulfur. Thats interesting. Scientists think Jupiter (the clouds) contained sulfur. If fragments penetrated the clouds, then some sulfur would show up, therefore, the author concludes with the second boldface statement: its probably the case that some fragments were large enough to get all the way through to the cloud layer before being burned up.
Your notes might look something like this (though there are lots of ways to write notes!):
Comet frags, how big?
S. from where? Not frags
From Js clouds therefore, some frags prob big enough to get that far
Do you know what the conclusion is? Label it. How does each boldface relate to that conclusion? Were going to use one of three designations:
(C) It is the authors conclusion. (Note that there could be a counter-conclusion made by someone else in the argument; were concerned with the authors conclusion. In this case, the author is the astronomer mentioned at the very beginning.)
(S) It supports the conclusion. The author provides the information as part of an attempt to support the authors conclusion.
(Neg or Neut) Its neither the conclusion nor support for the conclusion. The two big possibilities here are that it actively goes against the conclusion which well call a neg (for negative) or it doesnt affect the conclusion either way which well call a neut (for neutral). Note that were grouping these two together; thats because neither is actually part of the argument the author is trying to build.
Answering the Question
The conclusion is the last part of the last sentence; that is, the conclusion is the second boldface. So label your 2nd boldface C (or whatever youd like to use to indicate the conclusion). The first boldface, then, is not the conclusion. Does the author include the information in order to help support his conclusion? Or does the first boldface either go against the conclusion or do nothing to it?
While the first boldface all by itself doesnt directly make the conclusion any stronger, it is part of the sequence of information that the author uses to support the conclusion: fragments didnt have sulfur, but Jupiters clouds did, so the observed sulfur probably come from the clouds, so and then the author draws the conclusion. Well label the first boldface an S.
This should be on your scrap paper:
1st: S, 2nd: C (again, using whatever labels youve decided to use).
Now, go through the answers and eliminate any that you think are definitely wrong. For any that might be right, dont eliminate yet; save them for a later comparison.
Answer A says that the author offers an explanation for the information found in the first boldface. Is that an appropriate kind of thing for something labeled an S? Yes, possibly, so lets leave it in. The answer also says that the second boldface is that explanation could that be describing a conclusion? Possibly, so leave it in.
Answer B says that the first boldface weighs against the conclusion. Thats not consistent with something labeled S. Eliminate.
Answer C says the same thing: the first boldface weighs against the conclusion. Thats not consistent with something labeled an S. Eliminate.
Answer D says that the first boldface supports the conclusion. Thats definitely what an S statement would do. Oh but this answer also says that the second boldface weighs against the conclusion. Thats not consistent with something labeled C. Eliminate.
Answer E says that the first boldface supports the conclusion; thats consistent with an S. The answer also says that the second boldface is the conclusion; thats consistent with a C.
Answer E looks like a pretty good match, but we still have answer A in the mix as well, so lets go take another look.
Hmm. Answer E calls the first boldface a judgment. Is that accurate? And answer A calls the first boldface a circumstance and says the author explains that circumstance. Is that accurate? Heres the statement again:
The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur
Is that a fact? If so, we shouldnt call it a judgment. Oh, wait it says they almost certainly contained no sulfur. So we dont actually know that for sure its not a fact. We can call that a judgment, then.
Does the author offer an explanation for that information? That would mean offering an explanation for why the fragments almost certainly contained no sulfur or how we know that this is true of the fragments. Does the author offer that information?
No. The author never explains anything about why that statement is true or how we know. The author simply asserts the information. Further, the second boldface does not contain that explanation; the second boldface is the conclusion. Eliminate A.
The correct answer is E.
Key Takeaways for Solving Boldface CR Problems:
(1) Know how to recognize this type. This is typically straightforward, as most of the arguments will actually contain boldface font. One variation is to show communication between two people (Joe says Mary responds) and to ask what role Marys response to Joe plays or something similar.
(2) Know what to do with Analyze the Argument questions. Find the conclusion and label each boldface relative to the conclusion: a C for Conclusion, an S for Support (the conclusion), a Neg for something that goes against the conclusion and a Neut for something that doesnt affect the conclusion either way. (Again, you can use any symbols you want, as long as youre consistent.)
Read other articles in this series:
Special Announcement: Don't miss out on tonight's "Thursdays with Ron"! Submit your questions or see past recordings by clicking here.
* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.