DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

If I interpret it as follows:

Person 2 is ACTUALLY offering an explanation of the case that The Falcons are NOT going to win the game today perhaps!

Why *that* will be wrong (and how) ?

Well, this one proved sadly prescient. Maybe it's easier to think about it this way. Generically, if you saw the following structure: I believe X because Y, X would be your opinion and Y would be an explanation for it. So in this case, if one were to write, I believe you're being overly optimistic about the Falcons' chances because they have a tendency to blow big leads, "I believe you're being overly optimistic" would be an opinion, and "They have a tendency to blow big leads" would be the explanation for that opinion. (apologies to Falcons fans still mourning.)

Let me see whether I understand you here correctly -

You mean the EXPLANATION part should ALWAYS be EXPLICITLY stated in the ARGUMENT as in your example. We can't consider the sense of the EXPLANATION in any IMPLICIT way through the OPINION/JUDGEMENT part as I did.

Am I correct ?

Hi Dave,
Could you please share your thoughts on my above mentioned concerns ?

And also please shed light on this: https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-12-89-t281687.html#789252

Look forward to hear from you. Much thanks in advance!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Isn't it true that in BF CR, it's the very CONCLUSION (in general) that the ARGUMENT seeks to establish ? I mean, doesn't this phrase "ARGUMENT seeks to establish" GENERALLY point toward the very CONCLUSION in BF CR ? (From this aspect ONLY, I got the sense that BF2 in option E stands correct!)

Curious to know your thoughts!

I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but it isn't quite what E says.

OK. So, it boils down to this: GENERALLY,in BF CR the phrase "ARGUMENT seeks to establish" points toward the very CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. However, there are EXCEPTIONS and BF2 of option E is just one of such exceptions.

Did I get you right ?

Sure, but I don't think there's any reason to generalize about what to expect when you see a phrase such as "seek to establish." It's more important to make sure you're always reading answer choices carefully enough that you're attuned to the details of the language. Whether an argument is seeking to establish a conclusion or context, etc., will be apparent from these details.

Thanks Dave!

Any thoughts on this part: https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-12-89-t28 ... tml#789253 ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

If I interpret it as follows:

Person 2 is ACTUALLY offering an explanation of the case that The Falcons are NOT going to win the game today perhaps!

Why *that* will be wrong (and how) ?

Well, this one proved sadly prescient. Maybe it's easier to think about it this way. Generically, if you saw the following structure: I believe X because Y, X would be your opinion and Y would be an explanation for it. So in this case, if one were to write, I believe you're being overly optimistic about the Falcons' chances because they have a tendency to blow big leads, "I believe you're being overly optimistic" would be an opinion, and "They have a tendency to blow big leads" would be the explanation for that opinion. (apologies to Falcons fans still mourning.)

Let me see whether I understand you here correctly -

You mean the EXPLANATION part should ALWAYS be EXPLICITLY stated in the ARGUMENT as in your example. We can't consider the sense of the EXPLANATION in any IMPLICIT way through the OPINION/JUDGEMENT part as I did.

Am I correct ?

In order for a bolded part of an argument to be correctly described as an explanation, that bolded portion would have to be explicitly describe why something is true. (But, of course, not every argument will have an explanation within it, as sometimes the question will itself be asking for an explanation.)

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:You mean the EXPLANATION part should ALWAYS be EXPLICITLY stated in the ARGUMENT as in your example. We can't consider the sense of the EXPLANATION in any IMPLICIT way through the OPINION/JUDGEMENT part as I did.

Am I correct ?

In order for a bolded part of an argument to be correctly described as an explanation, that bolded portion would have to be explicitly describe why something is true.

OK. So, here BF2 is itself an explanation (BUT NOT a support the explanation) to the main CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Am I correct ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:But, of course, not every argument will have an explanation within it, as sometimes the question will itself be asking for an explanation.

Can you please elaborate this a BIT further ?

OK. So, here BF2 is itself an explanation (BUT NOT a support the explanation) to the main CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Am I correct ?

Perfectly reasonable interpretation.

Can you please elaborate this a BIT further ?

I'm referring to "Explain the Paradox questions," in which the correct answer is the explanation for some phenomenon described in the prompt.

Some official examples:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/missing-some ... 86860.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/alligator-po ... 49768.html

Hi Dave,
As we wrap-up this discussion, just one quick final end-note to clarify:

Can we describe BF2 as An evidence that explains what the argument seeks to establish (re CONCLUSION of the argument) ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Dave,
As we wrap-up this discussion, just one quick final end-note to clarify:

Can we describe BF2 as An evidence that explains what the argument seeks to establish (re CONCLUSION of the argument) ?

I wouldn't say that this description is incorrect, but it's important to note that the OA captures the provisional nature of the argument. In other words, "seek to establish" gives the impression of a confident stance, whereas the argument is claiming that something "might not be true." You could make the argument that one can seek to establish that a conclusion might not be true, as you have. Just be sure to be mindful of the tone of the argument and note how strongly the author believes whatever assertion she's making.