Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
26 Aug 2021, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
56% (01:56) correct
44%
(02:11)
wrong
based on 635
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Gaming pundit: Indubitably, creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games, but too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Yes, some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, but more frequently the software engineers must mold the creative vision into a playable interface.
The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?
A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.
B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.
C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.
E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.
V33-19
The two portions in boldface play which roles in the gaming pundit’s argument?
A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance.
B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur.
C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion.
E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem.
|
V33-19
27 Aug 2021, 08:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Explanation
Choice A: No. While the pundit does believe the first statement, the second is not provided in explicit support of that first statement.
Choice B: No. The pundit does not believe that the fact creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games is entirely unwarranted.
Choice C: Yes. That creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games is presented as conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with the qualification that too often the lead software engineers get too little of the spotlight for their contributions. Then, the fact that some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development, is presented as a concession to that conventional wisdom.
Choice D: No. The first statement is not the pundit’s main conclusion.
Choice E: No. The second statement is not a solution to anything.
The correct answer is choice C.
General Discussion
26 Aug 2021, 09:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
These are tough questions. I do poorly on bold faced questions.
In identifying conclusions, the "why" test is good.
First bold: creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games
-> this certainly passes the "why" test, as it is a debatable claim and is largely unsubstantiated by bold words itself. I would call this a conclusion. But we need more than just that. The authors opinion is that software designers get too little credit, so this first conclusion is explaining who is getting the credit instead.
Second bold: some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development
-> this does not pass the "why" test, I do not believe it is a conclusion. But we need to know more than that. The author is trying to say software engineers get too little credit for design. This appears to be a point that opposes the authors opinion.
Based on these thoughts, lets look at the answer choices.
A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. - no, the author states software engineers get too little credit. Also very strong wording here which is a red flag. Eliminate.
B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. - no, the author agrees that desingers should get some credit. Eliminate.
C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. - yes, this is perfect. Aligns with pre-thinking. IMO the best answer.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. - No, the author actually is concluding that software engineers get too little credit. Eliminate.
E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. - you could make the case that the first is ok here, but the second isn't really a solution if the first is a problem. Eliminate.
In identifying conclusions, the "why" test is good.
First bold: creative directors deserve credit for the design and vision of many of the most renowned video games
-> this certainly passes the "why" test, as it is a debatable claim and is largely unsubstantiated by bold words itself. I would call this a conclusion. But we need more than just that. The authors opinion is that software designers get too little credit, so this first conclusion is explaining who is getting the credit instead.
Second bold: some creative directors lead the software engineering team in game development
-> this does not pass the "why" test, I do not believe it is a conclusion. But we need to know more than that. The author is trying to say software engineers get too little credit for design. This appears to be a point that opposes the authors opinion.
Based on these thoughts, lets look at the answer choices.
A. The first presents a circumstance that the pundit believes is unassailably true; the second provides explicit support for that circumstance. - no, the author states software engineers get too little credit. Also very strong wording here which is a red flag. Eliminate.
B. The first is a hypothetical situation that the pundit presents as unwarranted; the second explains why that situation is unlikely to occur. - no, the author agrees that desingers should get some credit. Eliminate.
C. The first is conventional wisdom that the pundit accepts with qualification; the second is a concession to that conventional wisdom. - yes, this is perfect. Aligns with pre-thinking. IMO the best answer.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the pundit’s argument; the second is the opposing view to the pundit’s conclusion. - No, the author actually is concluding that software engineers get too little credit. Eliminate.
E. The first is a problem that the pundit sees in the gaming industry; the second is her primary solution to that problem. - you could make the case that the first is ok here, but the second isn't really a solution if the first is a problem. Eliminate.
