Antonio: Although many attorneys stress the importance of writing a wi

Its clearly between C and D: as second bold statement is refuting the first, so only C,D provides these options.

Now narrowing down further, we need to see exact wording which author is using,
in C: evidence, accuracy, which can give us lead why D can be preferred over C. Author is not giving any factual evidence, rather presenting a claim, and 2nd is not questioning its Accuracy,rather presenting a view which 1st quote missed.

(C) The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence
(D) The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based

D is correct : as 2nd BD concisely contradict the premise not the conclusion as whole: that is missing in the premise to state the conclusion.

Can someone pls explain why the OA is B?

Posted from my mobile device

BF1= A position taken by Antonio
BF2= Claim not disagreeing with the position in BF1 but pointing out a gap in the main conclusion.

Option B fits with the above explanation.

Option D is wrong because BF1 is not "the conclusion" of the passage. It's another conclusion.

Bunuel, could you please verify my above explanation.

B.The first states the position.
D. The first is the conclusion of argument.

In D, the point-"the conclusion of argument"-seems weird. When we talk about the conclusion of argument, we consider complete argument given in CR problem.
So the first is conclusion of an individual, not that of a total argument.
Therefore, B is over D.
But I didn't understand about second bold phrase. How it is evidence to support the position mentioned in first bold phrase.
Please explain.

Wow! This is probably the toughest question I have ever seen. 3% accuracy.

I was down to B and D but marked B because as per D BF1 is the conclusion and I don't agree to that.

OE?

I disagree with the OA.... though the first part of answer choice B sounds true (the boldface part is a position), the second bold face certainly doesn't provide evidence supporting that position.

first Bold: people should avoid expenses associated with lawyer to draft a will (position)
why? : because xyz law deals with division of property (in a certain way) after death( similar to the will), and most people would anyway want the division of property similar way. Hence, why bother with lawyer fee?

Second bold: Will also deal with such things as x, y, z......more than just distribution of property [ I dont see any support to the first position]


I was rather thinking that the first boldface was a conclusion of the argument (the argument made by first person) - concl: you should avoid lawyers fee.....(because of so and so...)
second bold face states that your so and so isn't valid. (because a will is much more than your so and so.. )... Here the second bold part is providing a premise which contradicts the premise (will deals exactly like xyz law). Hence, answer choice D.



Experts, please would you help identify the logic gap in my reasoning.... Bunuel GMATNinja @vertiaskarishma mikemcgarry daagh nightblade354

B) The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting that position

Beatrice: But the distribution of assets is not the only function handled by a will

It is clear that the second bold line does not support the first bold line. It is not agreeing to the idea that one should desist from making a will based on a part factor. In essence, the word 'but" signifies that. That is the reason, one cannot agree with choice B.

D) The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based
Please note that D does not talk about the argument of the passage as a whole. It talks about the conclusion of an argument, which is effectively is Antonio's argument. One should not mistake one for the other.

Antonio theorizes that the equitable distribution is the be-all and end-all of a will. The second part of D contradicts that ground saying that there is more to a will than just the division of property.

In option D, it is mentioned as "the conclusion of an argument" and not " the conclusion of the passage ", therefore, it is correct

As oppose to option B, BF2 doesn't support position(or conclusion) in BF1.

TheNightKing gvij2017 Adedami

Really think the answer cannot be B. Thoughts?

I agree, AnirudhaS. I would call this a question of dubious quality, right down to the identification of each boldface as a phrase when each one is a clause instead. (Why do we need to get into the grammar anyway? Official questions just go with the first and the second.) For the second boldface to be providing evidence in support of the position outlined in the first boldface, we would need to see Beatrice go on to argue that most people should, in fact, avoid hiring an attorney to draft a will. Notice that her boldface could still go against one of the premises of the argument put forth by Antonio, but her conclusion would need to fall in line with his. Instead, she concludes that a will can serve a useful purpose... nothing like what we would expect, and nothing to do directly with hiring an attorney.

On the basis of the identification of the first boldface, we should be able to eliminate all choices except (B) and (D): an argument, and not the argument, is crucial in (D). When we jump across the comma, we cannot get behind (B), for reasons explained above. Meanwhile, the latter portion of answer choice (D) holds up to scrutiny, particularly when compared against the first line of the passage. In short, Antonio adopts two positions: 1) most people would be better off not drafting a will (line one); and 2) most people should avoid the expense of hiring an attorney to draft a will. Meanwhile, Beatrice points out the value of having a will (but does not specify who does the drafting), since a will can serve a useful purpose even if the distribution of assets would be the same as that under intestacy laws.

You seem to have followed the passage well. I would venture to guess that the OA is incorrect, that perhaps a (D) was confused with a (B) in a hurried look at the source. (Notice the typos in drafter toward the end of Antonio's argument, or the comma instead of a period at the end of that sentence.) I would move on and get back to official questions.

- Andrew

(A) The first phrase states an exception to a general principle, and the second restates that principle
Absolutely way outside the line of reasoning therefore out

(B) The first phrase states a position, and the second provides evidence supporting that position
Both the boldfaces are on the opposite planks therefore out

(C) The first phrase presents factual evidence, and the second disputes the accuracy of that evidence
The accuracy was never question , rather a wider argument was adapted therefore out

(D) The first phrase states the conclusion of an argument, and the second contradicts a premise upon which the conclusion is based
Definitely this is exactly the intended meaning therefore let us hang on to it

(E) The first phrase contradicts generally accepted beliefs, and the second describes a specific example of those beliefs
the contradiction was never substantiated by the second argument therefore out

Therefore IMO D

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.