Karun, there is nothing in boldface.

Plants that exhibit certain leaf diseases tend to measure extremely high in the amount of zinc in their leaf and stem tissue. Botanists have discovered that phosphorus of the type typically used in a phosphorus-high fertilizer reacts with the zinc in such a way as to prevent treated plants from exhibiting the leaf diseases, and zinc is the cause and not merely an effect of the leaf diseases. Thus, plants can be cured from these leaf diseases by the use of a fertilizer high in phosphorus.

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the second-premise that is in support of this argument.

(B) The first is the background that the argument includes; the second is the part of evidence in support of this argument.

(C) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the consideration that is in support of the first.

(D) The first is the premise that supports the evidence; the second is that evidence.

(E) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the second-premise that is complementary to other evidence.
____________________________________________________________
Premise 1. Plants exhibiting leaf diseases measure extremely high in the amount of zinc.
Premise 2. Botanists discovered that phosphorus used in fertilizers react with zinc and prevent treated plants from exhibiting leaf diseases and zinc is the cause and not an effect of leaf disease.
Conclusion - Plants can be cured from leaf diseases by using fertilizers high in phosphorus.

I will go with A

B – Everything included in an argument is either a Premise or a Conclusion, so this can be eliminated.
C – The second is not talking about leaf disease, so, it is not in support of the first.
D – The second is not an evidence.
E – The second is not complimenting the first one.

Between (A) and (B). I want to pick (A) but will pick (B).

(B).

"B"....first BF can't be a premise, so all others r out. First BF is just an FYI kinda info.

Plants that exhibit certain leaf diseases tend to measure extremely high in the amount of zinc in their leaf and stem tissue. Botanists have discovered that phosphorus of the type typically used in a phosphorus-high fertilizer reacts with the zinc in such a way as to prevent treated plants from exhibiting the leaf diseases, and zinc is the cause and not merely an effect of the leaf diseases. Thus, plants can be cured from these leaf diseases by the use of a fertilizer high in phosphorus.

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the second-premise that is in support of this argument.

(B) The first is the background that the argument includes; the second is the part of evidence in support of this argument.

(C) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the consideration that is in support of the first.

(D) The first is the premise that supports the evidence; the second is that evidence.

(E) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the second-premise that is complementary to other evidence.

go for B
Plants that exhibit certain leaf diseases tend to measure extremely high in the amount of zinc in their leaf and stem tissue. It just the expression of fact, no supporting or weakening the conclusion. Therefore, we can view it as a background.


Botanists have discovered that phosphorus of the type typically used in a phosphorus-high fertilizer reacts with the zinc in such a way as to prevent treated plants from exhibiting the leaf diseases,
premise 1
and zinc is the cause and not merely an effect of the leaf diseases.
premise 2
Thus, plants can be cured from these leaf diseases by the use of a fertilizer high in phosphorus. conclusion

Premises:
1) (Plants that exhibit certain leaf disease -> measure high in amt of zinc in leaf and stem tissues)

2) Botanist: discovered phosphorus used in phosphorus high fertilizer react with zine to prevent leaf disease

3) (Botanist: also discovered zinc is the cause and not an effect of leaf disease)

Conclusion:
4) Plants can be cured from leaf disease by use of high phosphorus fertilizer

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the second-premise that is in support of this argument.
- The first premsie is a piece of information the argument includes. The argument goes on to talk about Botanist's discovery. The second premise however is not something in support of the argument. It is just part of the discovery the Botanists made.

(B) The first is the background that the argument includes; the second is the part of evidence in support of this argument.
- The first piece of information is a background (just tells us plant with leaf diseases has high zinc content), and the second is part of an evidence to support the argument (by saying zinc is the cause, and not effect, it goes to support the argument that by cancelling the effect of zinc with the use of phosphorous fertilizer, leaf disaese can be prevented)

(C) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the consideration that is in support of the first.
- second premise doesn't support first premise

(D) The first is the premise that supports the evidence; the second is that evidence.
- The second premise is not an evidence that the first premise supports

(E) The first is the first-premise that the argument includes; the second is the second-premise that is complementary to other evidence.
- second premise is not complementary to first premise

I'll go with B.

What's the OA for this question ?

chunjuwu, can I get some more information on this :

premise <> fact or evidence <> assumption <> background <>conclusion

I always thought that everything was a premise or a conclusion.

Yes, everything is either a premise, but there can only be 1 conclusion. Assumptiosn are unstated evidence, so you can never find an assumption in a passage.

Hi, I found this posted by Paul. Hope it helps

Principle: something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact: something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence: what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

Background: Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion: Self-explanatory

Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?

I am pasting this in sticky area.