Boreal Owls range over a much larger area than do

BID (Boil It Down): Scarce owl prey -> Wider ranging

The Goal: We need to identify the purpose of each statement, and the relationship between the two.

Statement 1: Scientists’ hypothesis (scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely)
Statement 2: Wider ranging owls in areas where food that owl’s prey eats is scarcer (lends support to the idea that scarcer prey causes boreal owls to range over a wider area.

The relationship between the two: The second provides support for the first, which leads the author to state that the hypoth is plausible.

Formal Recap of Argument
Conclusion: This argument has two conclusions. The author’s conclusion is that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation – it does have support. The scientists’ conclusion/hypothesis is that boreal owls range over unusually large areas because of a scarcity of prey.

Evidence: Boreal owls range over unusually large areas when they live where food eaten by small mammals is relatively sparse. Since this evidence supports the scientists, it also supports the author of the argument.

Assumption: The scarcity of small mammal food indicates a scarcity of small mammals. It should be noted, however, that the author does not make a definite claim; it merely says that the scientists are not merely speculating.

Attack the Options
As always, let’s check out the stance of the options to see which ones botch it. Notice that D and E botch the first statement. The argument DEFINITELY does not oppose the hypothesis. In fact the author makes the case that the hypothesis is pretty reasonable.

Between A, B, and C, let’s see what’s going on with the back half of the options:

A: the second statement is not the conclusion. It’s proof that the author finds promising. Chuck it.

Now, between B, and C there’s more of a nuance, but C references some sort of alternative hypothesis. Nowhere in this prompt do we see any indication of an alternative hypothesis. Drop option C.

Option B is correct. The first statement does provide a hypothesis; it hypothesizes an explanation for the wide range of boreal owls: scarcity of prey. The second portion, while not definitive, does provide some support to the hypothesis, and the author acknowledges that this proof adds credence to the hypothesis. Since the owls range over larger areas when the food of small mammals is scarce, this might well be because the small mammals eaten by the owls are scarce.
_________________

Observation: Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size.
Hypothesis: it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely
Another observation: boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse (it supports the hypothesis by showing that boreal owls do increase their range in regions where food is low.)
Conclusion: the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation. (It may have some merit)

The hypothesis and the other observation are in bold.

A. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
Second is not the main conclusion.

B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis.
Correct. First is an explanatory hypothesis and the second does support this hypothesis

C. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence to support an alternative explanation.
The second supports this hypothesis, not an alternative explanation.

D. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second presents evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed.
The argument support the hypothesis. Incorrect.

E. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
The argument support the hypothesis. Incorrect.

Answer (B)

BF 1 presents a hypothesis.
BF 2 validates the hypothesis.
Therefore, the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation.

D and E can easily be eliminated - The argument seeks to provide evidence to validate BF 1.
C is out as well (BF 2 supports the hypothesis)
BF 2 is not a conclusion so A is also out

Hence, B is the best answer choice.
_________________

Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. --- issue in hand/ hypothesis/ a conclusion

Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely. --- evidence for above hypothesis / not fact, hypothesis

This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live. --- objection in line

Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse. --- something in support of above hypothesis

This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation. --- main conclusion

Connection of two BF with main conclusion:
BF1- Scientists hypothesis on issue in hand/
BF2- A support given for main conclusion

B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis. --- on the same lines as we thought.

adkikani Please see my comments in green.

Can you advise why (D) is incorrect?

Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely. This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live. Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse. This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation.

Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size.
Background facts

Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely.
The claim of scientists.

This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, (author's opinion, main conclusion)
since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live.
(premise supporting above claim)

Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse.
Counter-premise to author's claim but supports Scientists hypothesis

This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation.
Main Conclusion



BF1: Yes author does oppose the claim of scientists by saying it is hard to confirm the claim by direct evidence. The first part is not True as Argument in whole does not oppose the Hypothesis
BF2 : the second presents evidence (refer 1)The second part is not True as well


On the Other hand option B

B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis.

The first indeed presents a hypothesis.
The second presents evidence ( where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse) to support the hypothesis

Hence Option B is right.

Take Away: When dealing with Bold Face questions identify the Main Conclusion and the Main point.This always helps in identifying the Bold faced statements.

Hope this helps! Let me know if you still need any clarification

You are correct, dcoolguy, that studies could be wrong or right. But that ties into the very definition of evidence. Evidence itself is neither wrong nor right. It is only used to support a contention. Here, because careful study has revealed something, the view that the scientists' hypothesis is not sheer speculation is substantiated. The hypothesis may not end up being correct, but at least it is well founded. Notice, too, the modifier in the latter half of answer choice (B): evidence tending to support [the] hypothesis. Tending to support is not synonymous with proving. In other words, the jury is still out on the accuracy of the hypothesis.

Perhaps the language used in the answer choice makes more sense now. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

nightblade354 VeritasKarishma GMATNinja gmat1393 DavidTutorexamPAL

Can you advise why (D) is incorrect?

Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely. This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live. Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse. This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation.

Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size.
Background facts

Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely.
The claim of scientists.

This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, (author's opinion, main conclusion)
since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live.
(premise supporting above claim)

Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse.
Counter-premise to author's claim - - ---(1)

This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation.
Intermediate claim supporting scientists hypothesis.



BF1: Yes author does oppose the claim of scientists by saying it is hard to confirm the claim by direct evidence.
BF2 : the second presents evidence (refer 1)

to undermine the support for the position being opposed. (basically, it weakens authors' claim)
_________________

Hey experts..
Though i got such question right but it takes complete 2 min to completely answer and sometimes more....might be this makes me skip some of the arguments in my mock and answering with half read arguments need help.

It may be helpful, people, to try to break apart the passage - to connect the different sections together according to their purpose in the passage.
_________________

Would choice C be correct,if it were - The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents alternative explanation to support this hypothesis?
_________________

VeritasKarishma

Can u explain how second bold face supporting first one?

The first bold face portion is a part of the premise that attempts to explain the owl has a large range.

the second bold face portion plays a support role to what the first portion tries to establish.

So, both the bold face portions are sort of in agreement with each other.

A. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
- the second portion IS NOT the main conclusion. Hence, eliminate (A)

B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis. - the first portion does indeed explain why a presented fact may be true while the second portion does support the first portion. Hence, (B) is the correct answer.

C. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence to support an alternative explanation. - there is no alternative explanation provided. Hence, eliminate (C)

D. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second presents evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed. - the argument does not oppose whats mentioned in the first portion. Hence, eliminate (D).

E. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. - whats described in the first portion does not oppose what the argument mentions. Hence, eliminate (E)

A clarification:


Argument: Scientists says XYZ .they concluded ABC. But people believe UVW and have practical results. Hence , UVW should be true.

In such an example:
1. position means ABC ( scientist conclusion ) or author conclusion(UVW). ( i think UVW is position of the argument)
2. Main Conclusion : ABC or UVW? ( i think UVW? please confirm)
3. Position means conclusion always ? If the last statement is not mention ( Hence , UVW should be true.) then position still have been opposite of ABC, right?

For answer choice (A), this literally just repeats the information already give—“range over a much larger area than do other owls.” The addition of eight times is all that is being made. Mark this one off the list!

For answer choice (B), this is a possibility—it explains why there are few small mammals for boreal owls to eat. A quick lesson in the food chain, perhaps?

For answer choice (C), the mention of the young and need to hunt more often is a bit outside the scope of the passage, and doesn’t explain why boreal owls need to expand their area. Or, rather, we’d have to make more than one jump in logic to explain why boreal owls need to hunt more widely.

For answer choice (D), like answer choice (C), this is also outside the scope. It implies, in fact, the opposite from the prompt and does nothing to confirm the explanation.

And lastly, answer choice (E) is much like (C) and (D)—why would less food explain why boreal owls hunt over a broader area? Wouldn’t they need to hunt less if they need more food?

The correct answer choice is (B)—and arguably the other answer choices are very easy to eliminate provided we’ve really thought through what would have explain why boreal owls hunt over a larger area.
_________________

The main conclusion: Scientist's hypothesis is not sheer speculation

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

A. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second states the main conclusion of the argument - Eliminate due to incorrect second part

B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis. - First does present scientist's hypothesis. By saying, "boreal owls do range over larger areas", it confirms/ provides support to the hypothesis. Correct

C. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence to support an alternative explanation - Eliminate due to incorrect second part

D. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second presents evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed. - the argument does not oppose any position. It just says, 'it is hard to confirm the validity of the hyothesis'. This is not equivalent to opposing the hypothesis. Incorrect

E. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second states the main conclusion of the argument - Eliminate due to incorrect second part

Some Kudos would be helpful?

Posted from my mobile device

Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely. This hypothesis would be hard to confirm directly, since it is not possible to produce a sufficiently accurate count of the populations of small mammals inhabiting the forests where boreal owls live. Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that boreal owls do range over larger areas when they live in regions where food of the sort eaten by small mammals is comparatively sparse. This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation.

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

A. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
BF1 is an explanatory hypothesis …” Scientists have hypothesized that it is scarcity of prey that leads the owls to range so widely” verbatim
BF2 is evidence which supports the hypothesis …”boreal owls do range over larger areas…”

B. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence tending to support this hypothesis.
Correct

C. The first presents an explanatory hypothesis; the second presents evidence to support an alternative explanation. X

D. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second presents evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed. X

E. The first describes a position that the argument opposes; the second states the main conclusion of the argument. X
_________________

Hello experts,
I agree that B is the best choice among all.
totally agree that its supporting the first BF.

but, still not able to digest how its an evidence?

Careful study of owl behavior has, however, shown that......
To me, its a claim of studies.
studies could be wrong or right; how it is a fact, which is always true?
author is simply presenting a third party claim.
Isn't it?

First we'll read through the argument I pick up the key work "hypothesis" in the first sentence that includes the bolded phrase. So the first bolded phrase focuses on the hypothesis of the Boreal owls' range. The second phrase provides support to the first sentence with the hypothesis. The conclusion is the last sentence, "This indicates that the scientists’ hypothesis is not sheer speculation."

D and E can be eliminated since they state the first sentence the argument opposes, it doesn't oppose it's a hypothesis.

A is incorrect since the second phrase is NOT the conclusion.

C is incorrect because it claims there is an alternative explanation, there is no alternative presented.

B is correct, the first phrase explains the hypothesis. The second phrase is the evidence that supports that hypothesis.

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.
_________________