Conclusion = Premise : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Feb 2017, 11:23

# TODAY:

Expecting Interview Invites from MIT Sloan Shortly - Join Chat Room3 for LIVE Updates

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Conclusion = Premise

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2009
Posts: 54
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2009, 15:43
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 9 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Hi there,

I came across this CR problem in the Powerscore's CR bible:

Quote:
One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date is more likely to be right.

Powerscore states that this problem is only composed of facts (evidence; premises). So now I was wondering how to most effectively draw the line between premise and conclusion? For instance, I could say:

Because one of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Therefore, historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources [...]

That's one of the strategies that Powerscore recommends when you have a stimulus without words that indicate a premise (such as because) or conclusion (such as therefore). Also, the stimulus uses the strong wording "should". Taking this all together, I would say that Historians should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources [...] is a conclusion.

What do you all think? I'm interested in your train of thought!

Thanks
Steve
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Affiliations: Consortium (CGSM.org), NSHMBA
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 937
Location: New Haven
Schools: Yale SOM Class of 2012
WE 1: Investment Banking Summer Associate (Boutique tech M&A)
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 230 [0], given: 113

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2009, 07:21
in this case, i'd say there are two conclusions. the sub-conclusion is the one you noted (historians should minimize the # of sources). however, what if after doing that there are still various sources left over? then the final conclusion is to try to independently date the event. i think the "premise > sub conclusion > conclusion" model is pretty frequent on the LSAT.. not so much on the GMAT (although in the bolded type verbal questions, this structure often does appear)
_________________
Re: Conclusion = Premise   [#permalink] 11 Sep 2009, 07:21
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Counter premise and Counter conclusion in an argument 0 05 Feb 2016, 22:06
Identify Premise 1 15 May 2014, 14:23
1 CR - Premise and Conclusion 1 02 Jul 2012, 10:07
Can a conclusion be based on a flawed premise, especially 2 07 Jul 2011, 23:57
6 Consideration =premise Assumption =premise A product that 19 21 Aug 2010, 21:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by