During early 1990s a series of raids on antique shops and

Question

4. During early 1990s a series of raids on antique shops and museums plagued Chicago.  All these robberies were organized by the famous burglar and antique hunter Antonio Cassini and had a distinctive artistic style only Cassini was capable of.  For the past ten years, however, there was not a single instance of a Cassini-like robbery and rumours have spread that Cassini has retired. But now he is surely back in business:  the robbery of a large antique shop last month bore all the marks of past Cassini raids. 

Which of the following best describes the roles of the highlighted portions of the argument?

A: the first and second are pieces of evidence necessary for the conclusion to be properly drawn
B: the first describes past events with which the author draws an analogy; the second is the authorâ€™s main idea
C: the first is unessential background information while the second is the main evidence on which the authorâ€™s conclusion depends
D: the first is the evidence which supports the main conclusion while the second is an assumption necessary for this conclusion to be properly drawn
E: the first contains information that casts doubt on the authorâ€™s position; the second is a fact that supports this position

cooldude2281 · Answer

Is the answer B?? Used POE to arrive at the answer :-)

gandy_achar · Answer

B for me too.

GA

rthothad · Answer

I would go with A

The main idea is â€œBut now he is surely back in businessâ€

HIMALAYA · Answer

A.
Clearly the choice is between A and B. CDE are easily ruled out because they are either irrelavant or out of scope. In B, the author says "the second boldface is main idea", which is not true.

As says A, the conclusion is "now he is surely back in business", and evidences are the tow BFs.

:thanks

preat.........

Folaa3 · Answer

I can say this much that itâ€™s not B reason being , while the first boldface is in fact descriptive of events of the past, the second bold face has nothing to do with authors main idea. 


Itâ€™s definitely between A and E. 
I lean more towards E because if the author could be skeptical about who is the brain behind the recent robbery since ideally, if it were Cassini, it would have been known that it was him by virtue of his disitncitve artistic style which only him was capable of. 
Now the the second boldface, validates his skepticism because it reveals the robbery bore all the marks of past cassini raids thus cassini might not have retired.

Praetorian · Answer

A is the best answer.

In this passage the author argues that Cassini has resumed his criminal activity.
B is wrong because the second bold-faced portion of the text is not the authorâ€™s main idea.
C is wrong because the first portion is not â€œunessentialâ€

During early 1990s a series of raids on antique shops and

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards