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

Redeem

GMAT Official Guide 2019 Boreal owls range over a much

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

GMAT Official Guide 2019 Boreal owls range over a much

by BTGmoderatorDC » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:26 pm
Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely. This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live. Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse. This indicates that the scientists' hypothesis is not sheer speculation.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis.
C. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence to support an alternative explanation.
D. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second presents evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed.
E. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.

B
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:25 am
With BOLDFACE questions in CR, you need to determine the following:

- what is the author's position? (or someone else's position presented by the author)?
- what is given in support of that position?
- are there opposing viewpoints presented?
- is each statement and OPINION or a FACT?

Then for each of the bolded statements, label the role that it's playing. Let's break down the argument, statement by statement:

1. Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. --> Fact that scientists will seek to explain.
2. Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely. --> The scientists' position/conclusion (opinion)
3. This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live. --> Fact that weighs against the scientists' position.
4. Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse. --> Fact that supports the scientists' position about range & food scarcity.
5. This indicates that the scientists' hypothesis is not sheer speculation. --> the author states that there is merit to the scientists' position.

Sentences 2 and 4 are the bolded ones in this case, so when looking at the answer choices, we're looking for:
boldface 1: The scientists' position/conclusion (opinion)
boldface 2: Fact that supports the scientists' position about range & food scarcity.

Tip for boldface questions: Just look at the 1st part first, and eliminate answers. Then look at the 2nd part.

For the 1st part of each answer choice, we want: The scientists' position/conclusion (opinion)

A. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis... --> yes, hypothesis = position/conclusion.
B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis... --> yes, same
C. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis... --> yes, same
D. The first describes a position that the argument opposes... --> no, the argument does not oppose this position.
E. The first describes a position that the argument opposes... --> no, same

We can eliminate D and E, and just look at the 2nd part of A, B, and C. We're looking for: Fact that supports the scientists' position about range & food scarcity.

A. ... the second states the main conclusion of the argument. --> no, it's a FACT, not a conclusion
B. ... the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis. yes, evidence = fact, and it's supporting the earlier position.
C. ... the second presents evidence to support an alternative explanation. --> no, there is no alternative explanation. The author agrees with the merits of the scientists' explanation.

The answer is B.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1