Traditionally, video game manufacturers have been most strongly influe

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The author explains that devoted gamers traditionally dictate the design of video games. However, due to changes in the market, the author argues that this system is no longer in the best interest of the industry. Instead, to infuse new life into the video game market, manufacturers should simplify their games in order to attract non-gamers into the gaming fold.

(A) The first boldface portion does relate a situation that the author believes to be true. The second boldface portion, however, does not explain this situation; instead, it offers evidence to demonstrate why this situation should not continue.

(B) CORRECT. The first boldface portion is a situation that the author believes to be true now. Due to changes in the market, however, the author believes this situation should not continue. The second boldface portion provides evidence to support the author’s contention that the best way to grow the gaming market is to attract new gamers.

(C) The first boldface portion is a statement of fact that contradicts the author’s position. The second boldface portion, however, provides evidence to support the author’s position, but it is not the position itself.

(D) The first boldface portion is a statement of fact that contradicts the author’s position. The second boldface portion provides evidence to support the author’s position.

(E) The first boldface portion is not a prediction; rather, it is a statement of fact (or description of a situation) that the author believes should not hold in this case. The second statement is not an assumption, nor does it weigh against the author's position; instead, it is a premise that provides evidence in support of the author’s position.

+1 B

BF1 - thus, most manufacturers continue to produce games with faster chips and flashier graphics
BF2 - The devoted gaming market is deeply stagnant, and it won’t soon expand

A) The first is a situation that the author believes to be true; the second offers evidence to explain this situation. (BF2 rather does the opposite)
B) The first is a situation that the author argues should not continue; the second provides evidence that supports the author’s position. (Best Answer yet)
C) The first is a statement of fact that contradicts the author’s position; the second is the author’s position. (BF1 does not contradict BF2, eliminate)
D) The first is a statement of fact that supports the author’s position; the second is a consideration that weighs against the author’s position.
What is the Author’s position? There could be two positions
1) Unfortunately, faster chips and flashier graphics are no longer in the industry’s best interest (BF1 rather supporting, contradicts this position)
2) To infuse new life into the video game market, manufacturers must simplify the functionality of their games(BF1 does not support this position)
E) The first is a prediction that the author believes should not hold in this case; the second is an assumption that weighs against the author’s position (On the same line as above, this option also gets eliminated)

Guys need your help! How did you all find out the author's position?

Answer choices B, C, D, are all too similar.

b) The first is a situation that the author argues should not continue; the second provides
evidence that supports the author’s position.
c) The first is a statement of fact that contradicts the author’s position; the second is the
author’s position.
d) The first is a statement of fact that supports the author’s position; the second is a
consideration that weighs against the author’s position.

May someone explain the differences. Thanks

Hi

Lets look at C

It says the second is the author’s position but if you look carefullly the second is just an opionion given by the author
"The devoted gaming market is deeply stagnant, and it won’t soon expand"

The authors position is

"To infuse new life into the video game market, manufacturers must simplify the functionality of their games. By doing so, current non-gamers will be attracted to join the ranks of video game fans"

Now lets look at D

It says

"The first is a statement of fact that supports the author’s position;"

It is actually against the authors position he wants this to be stopped.

Now when we look at B

It says

"The first is a situation that the author argues should not continue; the second provides
evidence that supports the author’s position"

If you look carefully then it is correct to infer that first is a situation that author thinks should not continue

and

If you look at the second boldface then it is actually giving a evidence to why the current practice should be changed.

What follows the boldface is the position that author holds.

Hope this helps.

Traditionally, video game manufacturers have been most strongly influenced by serious video gamers. Because devoted gamers have historically purchased the majority of video games, companies react to the desires of this market segment. Normally, devoted gamers crave speed and action; thus, most manufacturers continue to produce games with faster chips and flashier graphics. Unfortunately, faster chips and flashier graphics are no longer in the industry’s best interest. The devoted gaming market is deeply stagnant, and it won’t soon expand. To infuse new life into the video game market, manufacturers must simplify the functionality of their games. By doing so, current non-gamers will be attracted to join the ranks of video game fans.

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

IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: Unfortunately, faster chips and flashier graphics are no longer in the industry’s best interest.
> BF2 is a premise that supports this conclusion
> BF1 is a trend that happened in the past that should not necessarily continue to repeat for the benefit of the industry

(A) The first is a situation that the author believes to be true; the second offers evidence to explain this situation.
- BF1 is not a situation the author believes to be true...it is something the author says will not continue (b/c devoted gaming market is deeply saturated). further, BF2 is not supporting BF1, BF2 is supporting the opposite of BF1 (faster chips and flashier graphics are no longer in the industry's best interests)

(B) The first is a situation that the author argues should not continue; the second provides evidence that supports the author’s position.
- correct as is.

(C) The first is a statement of fact that contradicts the author’s position; the second is the author’s position.
- BF1 is not a statement of fact...it was a trend that has worked in the past but the author is saying it should not happen now nor should it continue into the near future. BF2 is not the author's position, BF2 supports the author's position

(D) The first is a statement of fact that supports the author’s position; the second is a consideration that weighs against the author’s position.
- same as "C", BF1 is not a statement of fact. also, BF2 does not weigh against the author's position...it weighs for the author's position!

(E) The first is a prediction that the author believes should not hold in this case; the second is an assumption that weighs against the author’s position.
- BF2 is not an assumption that weighs against the author's position

Kudos please if you find this helpful

General background / context (fact/premise)


Supporting evidence (premise)


Description of current strategy (intermediate conclusion / observation)


Author’s judgment / claim (main conclusion)


Supporting reason/situation change (premise for main conclusion)


Recommendation


Expected outcome / benefit (premise supporting recommendation)


If you break down the passage as you read it into components, you'll easily understand what role each line is playing and what role the boldface play in the argument.

B1: Intermediate conclusion that the author doesn't support, argues against it
B2: Evidence/Premise supporting the main conclusion

Following POE:
(A) The first is a situation that the author believes to be true => Nope, first is against author's argument/recommendation => eliminate A

(B) The first is a situation that the author argues should not continue; the second provides evidence that supports the author’s position.
This looks good, aligned with how we've mapped the passage. Keep.

(C) The first is a statement of fact that contradicts the author’s position => sounds good, read on, the second is the author’s position => Tricky, but this isn't author's position, the line preceding it is, this is a premise supporting the author's position => Eliminate


(D) The first is a statement of fact that supports the author’s position=> First doesn't support the author's position, rather goes against it => eliminate

(E) The first is a prediction that the author believes should not hold in this case=>alright sounds good, the second is an assumption that weighs against the author’s position => Nope, second is actually supporting author's position => eliminate

Answer: (B)