It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 05:38

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
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2009
Posts: 53

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 18

Show Tags

10 Sep 2009, 16:43
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 10 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

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 18

Director
Affiliations: Consortium (CGSM.org), NSHMBA
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 236 [0], given: 113

Location: New Haven
Schools: Yale SOM Class of 2012
WE 1: Investment Banking Summer Associate (Boutique tech M&A)

Show Tags

11 Sep 2009, 08:21
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)
_________________

Kudos [?]: 236 [0], given: 113

Re: Conclusion = Premise   [#permalink] 11 Sep 2009, 08:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by