GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors des

A - wrong - second is not explicit support
B - wrong - first is not a situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted rather believes unassailably true
D - wrong - is not the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion, rather concession as supported in option C
E - wrong - The first is not a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry

Hence C ans

BF1 : gaming director deserve the recognition they get
but software developers should also get more credit
BF2: game director leads team.

BF1 is accepted by the author, BF2 is the reason provided for BF1

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. -> True. Correct.

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. -> Not a hypothetical situation. Incorrect.

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. -> Not conventional wisdom and no concession. Read the word 'Indubitably'. Incorrect.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. -> main conclusion is software developers should also receive recognition along with GD. Incorrect.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. -> The pundit agrees to the BF1. It's not a problem. He/She is just pointing out that someone else should also be appreciated. Incorrect.

Ans. A.

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.--Incorrect, First is not a circumstance . It is a belief

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.--Incorrect, First is not a hypothetical situation

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.--Correct

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. Incorrect, First is not a main conclusion and second does not oppose anything

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.-Incorrect, First is not a problem and the second is neither a solution

IMO : C

Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games, but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Yes, some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, but more frequently the software engineers must mold the creative vision into a playable interface.

The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?

BF 1 - this is a position that the pundit accepts but says that lead software engineers also deserve credit but don't get it
BF 2 - this is a concession made by the pundit

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.
Incorrect. BF2 - doesn't provide explicit support for that circumstance

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.
Incorrect. BF1 - not a hypothetical situation - pundit accepts this

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.
Correct choice

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.
Incorrect. BF1 - not the main conclusion. BF2 description is also not correct

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.
Incorrect. BF1 - not a problem that the pundit sees

Option C.

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. = While this may be true, the word Indubitably is not mentioned in boldface, this then becomes conventional wisdom which he accepts. therefore this statement is incorrect.

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. = Hypothetical situation is completely wrong in this situation. Since this happens regularly. Incorrect usage.

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. = The boldface part one suggests conventional wisdom which the pundit accepts. the second with some gives a concession to that wisdom. Correct statement.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. = The second is not opposing to the pundit's first boldface statement. Incorrect usage.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. = The second boldface is not the primary solution. incorrect usage.

Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games, but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Yes, some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, but more frequently the software engineers must mold the creative vision into a playable interface.

The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?


A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.
The first statement is not a circumstance. It's a fact. The word explicit is extreme hence this is not correct.

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.
The first statement is not a hypothetical situation. It's a fact. The second explains the first statement is correct. Hence incorrect

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.
This is the correct explanation of the boldfaced statements. Hence correct.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.
The first statement is not the main conclusion. The second is not opposing the view of pundit hence this is not correct.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.
The first statement is not a problem. The second is nowhere rectifying the problem hence this is not correct.

My answer is A).

A) - "Indubitably" corresponds to the 1st part of this answer choice; 2nd BF does provide support, even though it is more of a concession to bring out the main piece of premise to support the conclusion that lead software engineers are getting too little credit. Nonetheless, the support is still there, so hold onto A).

B) - "presents as unwarranted" is wrong and stands in direct contrast to "Indubitably". B) is out.

C) - "accepts with qualification" is incorrect. There's no qualification in the acceptance. 2nd BF is also not a concession to the 1st BF, because 2nd BF supports the position of the 1st BF. C) is out.

D) - 1st BF is not the main conclusion. The main conclusion is software engineers are getting too little credit. D) is out.

E) - 1st BF is not a problem. The problem is software engineers are getting too little credit. 2nd BF certainly is not a solution to that problem. E) is out.

A) seems to be the best.

No, the second portion of the argument, though provides evidence to support the first statement, is used to introduce another view (Use of word but)

Not a hypothetical situation. Out

Looks Ok. correctly identifies the role of the second statement as a concession

First is not the conclusion. Out

The second is not a solution. Eliminate

Thus D is the right choice

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.

First BF is correct. The second BF is wrong. The goal of second BF is to provide support for his counter argument, not to support the circumstance itself.

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.
First BF is not hypothetical. The author accepts it as truth.

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.

Correct. First BF is something that author ACCEPTS. Second BF is something that happens because of that conventional belief mentioned in BF 1


D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.

First BF is not main conclusion.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.

First is not the problem and neither is second the solution.

Posted from my mobile device

Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games, but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Yes, some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, but more frequently the software engineers must mold the creative vision into a playable interface.

The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?


A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.
The gaming pundit does not believe it in a "unassailably" way. Incorrect

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.
The gaming pundit does not believe that it is "unwarranted". Incorrect

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.
Correct

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.
The first is not the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument. Incorrect

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.
The second is no a solution at all. Incorrect

IMO C

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. ( Incorrect: The first statement is mentioned correctly. However, the second statement does not give explicit support. It merely tries to provide a subtle support)

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. ( Incorrect: By no means it is suggested that first is a hypothetical situation. Second does not suggest any possibility)

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. ( Correct: The first statement is the wisdom or scenario that Pundit accepts and next clause (but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions.) suggests that he has some reservations. (or it is a qualified acceptance). In the passage, the pundit tried to give some credit to software engineers acknowledging that creative directors lead the team- in short providing some concession to first statement )

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. ( Incorrect :First is not the conclusion. It is just a belief or circumstance that the author is trying to negate in subtle way. Second goes in same line as first. It does not oppose first sentence)

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. ( Incorrcet :First is not problem that Pundit points out. It is simply a circumstance. Second is not even solution)

These are tough questions. I do poorly on bold faced questions.

In identifying conclusions, the "why" test is good.

First bold: creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games

-> this certainly passes the "why" test, as it is a debatable claim and is largely unsubstantiated by bold words itself. I would call this a conclusion. But we need more than just that. The authors opinion is that software designers get too little credit, so this first conclusion is explaining who is getting the credit instead.

Second bold: some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development

-> this does not pass the "why" test, I do not believe it is a conclusion. But we need to know more than that. The author is trying to say software engineers get too little credit for design. This appears to be a point that opposes the authors opinion.

Based on these thoughts, lets look at the answer choices.

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. - no, the author states software engineers get too little credit. Also very strong wording here which is a red flag. Eliminate.

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. - no, the author agrees that desingers should get some credit. Eliminate.

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. - yes, this is perfect. Aligns with pre-thinking. IMO the best answer.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. - No, the author actually is concluding that software engineers get too little credit. Eliminate.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. - you could make the case that the first is ok here, but the second isn't really a solution if the first is a problem. Eliminate.

Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games, but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Yes, some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, but more frequently the software engineers must mold the creative vision into a playable interface.

The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?


A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. It goes against

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. does not explain why

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. the first is what the author believes

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem not a solution

Ans: D

IMO C

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. Correct

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. -- it is not a hypothetical situation

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. -- we do not know what the pundit states is a conventional wisdom

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. -- First is not a conclusion

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.
--The pundit is not providing a solution to a problem

A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.

Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games, but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Yes, some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, but more frequently the software engineers must mold the creative vision into a playable interface.

The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?


A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. -contender seems correct

B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.-the 2nd doesn't explain anything unlikely

C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.-no concession is given

D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.-the 1st statement is not the main conclusion, moreover, both statements aren't opposing.

E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. -there is no solution given.

Therefore, A

A: The second part acknowledges the first part before adding extra information for reconsideration => eliminate A
B: "Indubitably": the first bold part is something the pundit is unquestionable => eliminate B
C: This is the correct answer
D: The pundit's main conclusion should be "the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions" => eliminate D
E: Again, the second part acknowledges the first part before adding extra information for reconsideration => eliminate E

IMO C