According to some statistics, most toddlers aged 1-2 are typically

Is OA E?

A scenario is described in the first sentence whose explanation is challenged by a alternate scenario ,which is BF1. From this an inference is drawn and the explanation for that inference is BF2. So BF1 supports BF2.


Here is my explanation:
ccording to some statistics, most toddlers aged 1-2 are typically affected by viral infections during their first year in daycare. It is commonly assumed that this occurs because of their immature immune systems. Nevertheless, a recent study has shown that of children who started attending daycare at ages 4-5, a considerably large percentage were affected by viral infections during their first year. Since the human immune system develops antibodies against viruses only after the first exposure, the study's finding strongly contends that the actual cause for young toddlers to become affected by viral infections during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age, but rather from the fact that their immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses.

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

A. The first is a claim whose accuracy is questioned by the argument; the second is a conclusion drawn on the basis of that claim.
The first is not a claim and its accuracy is not tested.

B. The first provides support for a position raised against the position defended in the argument; the second is the defended position.
The first BF never goes against the second BF which this option claims. First BF supports the second BF.

C. The first provides evidence that challenges the explanation that the argument supports; the second is a competing explanation that the argument favors.
argument as a whole supports the second BF. The first BF doesn't challenges it.

D. The first provides evidence that is used to challenge an explanation that the argument challenges as well; the second is that explanation.
The first BF doesn't challenges the explanation mentioned in second BF.It rather supports.

E. The first is evidence that supports the explanation favored by the argument; the second is that explanation.
BINGO! this is what we were looking for. The BF1 supports the BF2.

The correct answer is option E.

Here is the solution:

Independently let's evaluate the two boldface statements:
1. "children who started attending daycare at ages 4-5, a considerably large percentage were affected by viral infections during their first year." - This is clearly stated as a fact - hence is either evidence or premise. Clearly not the conclusion.
2. immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses - this is opinion, hence either conclusion or explanation.

Clearly, 1. and 2. support each other.

A. The first is a claim whose accuracy is questioned by the argument (Clearly not a claim, it's a fact. Also it is nowhere being questioned); the second is a conclusion drawn on the basis of that claim. - Reject

B. The first provides support (it states that it is evidence or support) for a position raised against the position (but it is not against the main conclusion) defended in the argument; the second is the defended position. - Reject

C. The first provides evidence (it states that it is evidence or support) that challenges (but doesn't challenge the main conclusion)
the explanation that the argument supports; the second is a competing explanation that the argument favors. - Reject

D. The first provides evidence (it states that it is evidence or support) that is used to challenge an explanation that the argument challenges as well (this seems fine); the second is that explanation ("that" here points to the explanation that the argument challenges ). - Reject

E. The first is evidence that supports the explanation favored by the argument (correct); the second is that explanation (correct) - Accept

In a bold face, question try to identify the conclusion and then link the statements (support/ argue against) to the conclusion.
Pay special attention to words such as but, nevertheless,since, etc.

According to some statistics, most toddlers aged 1-2 are typically affected by viral infections during their first year in daycare.
Fact. Sets the pretext of the argument.

It is commonly assumed that this occurs because of their immature immune systems.
The reason for supporting above premise.

Nevertheless, a recent study has shown that of children who started attending daycare at ages 4-5, a considerably large percentage were affected by viral infections during their first year.
Nevertheless - a key word suggesting contrast. Understand the contrast here, if possible by slowing down reading pace.
The first premise says toddlers of age 1-2 are affected by virus.
Recent results of study show : Toddlers between age 4-5 are affected in huge proportion by virus.

If you find this step, difficult try imaging your self to be in position most concerned with above results,
for eg. a child specialist doctor or a parent. If you are one of them, you do want to know the reason / paradox
behind this. Read on.

Since the human immune system develops antibodies against viruses only after the first exposure, the study's finding strongly contends that the actual cause for young toddlers to become affected by viral infections during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age, but rather from the fact that their immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses

Key word since suggests I must be presented with a reason to believe in something.
What is author's belief: he claims : Based on certain results, the actual cause for young toddlers to be affected by virus
during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age.
This is main conclusion.

Then what is the actual cause?
immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses
Why does author claim so?
because the human immune system develops antibodies against viruses only after the first exposure


BF1 is not a claim , it is fact.
BF 2 is not a conclusion, it is an explanation to support the main conclusion.


BF 1 : The first DOES NOT provide a support for the defended position against the main conclusion.
It is in fact an evidence independently supporting main conclusion.

BF2: BF 2 is not the position, it is an explanation to support the main conclusion.


BF 1: does not challenge the explanation / main conclusion.
BF 2 : correct.


BF 1 : Incorrect, Evidence is in support of main conclusion.
BF 2: Incorrect, it is not an explanation for which BF 1 goes against, it is in support / presents correct reason to make author's conclusion more believable.


Correct: both BF 1 and BF2 support main conclusion independently.

DAVEexamPAL can I have your inputs on above?

adkikani thx for the great explanation +1. Now I know what I did wrong.

gmatayush - congrats on getting this one 100%. PM me to get your GMAT Club tests subscription!

Hey adkikani, happy to help. All in all you definitely got the gist of it, but I did have some corrections.
My notes on your solution are in blue:
follow up with me if you have more questions.

In a bold face, question try to identify the conclusion and then link the statements (support/ argue against) to the conclusion.
Pay special attention to words such as but, nevertheless,since, etc.

According to some statistics, most toddlers aged 1-2 are typically affected by viral infections during their first year in daycare.
Fact. Sets the pretext of the argument.

It is commonly assumed that this occurs because of their immature immune systems.
The reason for supporting above premise. The above is not a premise, it is a fact - there is nothing to support or weaken. This sentence, however, is a premise - it gives a possible explanation for the above fact.

Nevertheless, a recent study has shown that of children who started attending daycare at ages 4-5, a considerably large percentage were affected by viral infections during their first year.
Nevertheless - a key word suggesting contrast. Understand the contrast here, if possible by slowing down reading pace.
The first premise says toddlers of age 1-2 are affected by virus. Not quite - as noted, the premise is not that toddlers aged 1-2 are affected (that's just a fact, and there's no contradiction between this and the claim made her), but rather that the reason toddlers get infected is their young age - this is in contrast to the information given here: if the reason is being 1-2 years old immune system, why are 4 and 5 year olds getting sick?
Recent results of study show : Toddlers between age 4-5 are affected in huge proportion by virus.

If you find this step, difficult try imaging your self to be in position most concerned with above results,
for eg. a child specialist doctor or a parent. If you are one of them, you do want to know the reason / paradox
behind this. Read on.

Since the human immune system develops antibodies against viruses only after the first exposure, the study's finding strongly contends that the actual cause for young toddlers to become affected by viral infections during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age, but rather from the fact that their immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses

Key word since suggests I must be presented with a reason to believe in something.
What is author's belief: he claims : Based on certain results, the actual cause for young toddlers to be affected by virus
during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age.
This is main conclusion.

Then what is the actual cause?
immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses
Why does author claim so?
because the human immune system develops antibodies against viruses only after the first exposure



Quote:
A. The first is a claim whose accuracy is questioned by the argument; the second is a conclusion drawn on the basis of that claim.

BF1 is not a claim , it is fact. right, important distinction
BF 2 is not a conclusion, it is an explanation to support the main conclusion. Actually, B is the conclusion - toddlers are sick because of their immune systems

Quote:
B. The first provides support for a position raised against the position defended in the argument; the second is the defended position.

BF 1 : The first DOES NOT provide a support for the defended position against the main conclusion.
It is in fact an evidence independently supporting main conclusion. yup

BF2: BF 2 is not the position, it is an explanation to support the main conclusion. Ditto my above comment - this is the conclusion. What did you understand the conclusion as being?

Quote:
C. The first provides evidence that challenges the explanation that the argument supports; the second is a competing explanation that the argument favors.

BF 1: does not challenge the explanation / main conclusion. right, it supports it
BF 2 : correct. yes

Quote:
D. The first provides evidence that is used to challenge an explanation that the argument challenges as well; the second is that explanation.

BF 1 : Incorrect, Evidence is in support of main conclusion. No, read more carefully - this evidence is indeed as you say in support of the main conclusion, but it is challenging an explanation the argument challenges as well - it is challenging the "infected because young' explanation. So this is correct
BF 2: Incorrect, it is not an explanation for which BF 1 goes against, it is in support / presents correct reason to make author's conclusion more believable. right. "that explanation" would be the claim that toddlers are sick because of their immature immune systems.

Quote:
E. The first is evidence that supports the explanation favored by the argument; the second is that explanation.

Correct: both BF 1 and BF2 support main conclusion independently. Good!

DAVEexamPAL

Thanks for your two cents.
Is my identification of original conclusion correct?



Key word since suggests I must be presented with a reason to believe in something.
What is author's belief: he claims : Based on certain results, the actual cause for young toddlers to be affected by virus
during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age.
This is main conclusion.

Then what is the actual cause?
immune systems have not yet developed the antibodies needed to combat these viruses
Why does author claim so?
because the human immune system develops antibodies against viruses only after the first exposure

Can you please re-assess BF 2 for (A)



My reasoning: the word that in original argument refers back to fact and a fact can not be a conclusion.
Only an opinion / belief of author can be termed as a main conclusion.

Looking forward to hear from you.

adkikani
Your identification of the conclusion is correct: as you said, the actual cause for young toddlers to be affected by virus
during their first year in daycare does not stem from their young age.

You are also correct that only an opinion / belief, and not a fact, of author can be termed as a main conclusion. Thus, I am reassessing and saying that it is accurate to say that BF 2 is not a conclusion on its own, but rather is part of the conclusion - the full conclusion being that because of this fact (BF 2), toddlers become infected.

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.