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

Redeem

CR from BTG Practice questions

Expert replies
by r2kins » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:56 pm
Religious debates are often clouded by historical issues. Although history is hindsight, religious debaters often argue that religious evolution creates rather than reacts to historical events. Historians, however, often counter with political explanations. But, realistically, how can you separate history from religion? The two are inextricably entwined. As one heretic commented, "Mortals will always debate mortal issues."

Which of the following inferences can be properly drawn from the argument above?
A. The perspectives of religious leaders and historians may sometimes clash.
B. Religion is more important than history.
C. Religion creates history.
D. Historians argue that religion is shaped by events rather than vice-versa.
E. It is sometimes necessary to separate history and religion.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by cans » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:02 pm
IMO D
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Join the discussion

by rohu27 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:19 pm
IMO A.

tough call bet A and D.
stimulus says " Historians, however, often counter with political explanations".
so goign for A.
Join the discussion

by r2kins » Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:06 pm
rohu27 wrote:IMO A.

tough call bet A and D.
stimulus says " Historians, however, often counter with political explanations".
so goign for A.
OA is A as you correctly point out.

I chose D.

So I guess the question is, can D be rejected because its sort of an inference (albeit a direct one) from what is stated??

would be grateful if someone could give a little more detail...

thanks
Join the discussion

by viv_gmat » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:35 am
My answer is A.

Why I selected A?

I felt "D" talks about a very specific or let say it derives from one of the statement mentioned in the argument.

Overall, what "A" talks about- it's a discussion between the historians and the religious people, each of them trying to prove their own point, as a result there is conflict.
Join the discussion

by jainnikhil02 » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:51 am
IMO D...

can any one please xplain it clearly why A..
Nikhil K Jain
____________________

"Life is all about timing" Don't waste your and others time.
Join the discussion

by shrivast » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:21 pm
According to me D does not mention anything about Religious debaters, hence does not cover the full paragraph. Only A talks about both Religious and Historians debaters...

Thanks
Join the discussion

by cans » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:47 pm
why is D rejected??
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Join the discussion

by aftableo2006 » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:53 pm
IMO A BCOZ IT COVERS THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF THE ARGUMENT
Join the discussion

by siddus » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:46 pm
Very interesting..

I think A is more of a Main Point here whereas D is more of an inference. Hopefully an expert should clarify this.
Join the discussion

by breakkgmat » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:46 am
I thought its D too..
Join the discussion

by bubbliiiiiiii » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:05 am
I actually picked C and eventually reallized why C is wrong.

Coming to D, I eliminated D because, D talks about religion being shaped by events and events being shaped by religion. The question stem compares the relogious evolution with historical events but not the religion itself. Thus, eliminated. I understand that C is wrong for the same reason as well.

I was attracted towards option A when I first read it but what made me to overlook A is, I couldnot find anywhere the perspectives of religious leaders and historians being compared in question stem. However, I found the the statement - Historians, however, often counter with political explanations - which I believe is comparing perspectives of historians and politicians.

Since, answer is A, is it that religious leaders themselves are politicians here???
Regards,

Pranay
Join the discussion

by Frankenstein » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:19 am
bubbliiiiiiii wrote: However, I found the the statement - Historians, however, often counter with political explanations - which I believe is comparing perspectives of historians and politicians.

Since, answer is A, is it that religious leaders themselves are politicians here???
Hi,
The intended meaning is 'Historians counter argument of religious debaters by giving political explanations'.
It is no that 'Historians counter political explanations.'
There are no politicians here.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by Ozlemg » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:24 am
For inference questions --> They seek answers from the premises already mentioned in the argument. In the argument its apperant from the language "..religious debaters often argue ..", "..Historians, however, often counter ..". So without any doubt we can conclude that they often clash.

D. Historians argue that religion is shaped by events rather than vice-versa.-->in the argument it is presented that "religious debaters often argue that religious evolution creates rather than reacts to historical events." So it is not correct to assume that historians argue vice-versa...

For me, other choices are etiher too general or irrelevant with the argument.
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Join the discussion