It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 07:28

### 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

# Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2005, 04:57
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibnizâ€™ that discuss one of Newtonâ€™s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newtonâ€™s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibnizâ€™ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibnizâ€™ notes are limited to early sections of Newtonâ€™s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newtonâ€™s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

In the historianâ€™s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historianâ€™s own position.
E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

hey ya......

Last edited by nakib77 on 23 Dec 2005, 12:51, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 95

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2005, 08:48
Nakib, can you boldface the portions please? Thanks.
_________________

JAI HIND!

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 544

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2005, 08:52

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2005, 12:52

there you go.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 544

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2005, 13:06
E is out, because the econd bolded phrase is an counterargument

B is out, since the second is not the historians position

D the second isn't the authors overall position

"It is virtually true that the traditional view is false"

I think it is A, because virtually true means something different than an intermdiate conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2005, 13:08
Hmmm...I hate this type of questions. Always tricky.

I would go with D. The author is criticizing the conclusion based on the new findings. He then offers his conclusion based on the new findings.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1050

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

Location: CA

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2005, 13:28
nakib77 wrote:
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibnizâ€™ that discuss one of Newtonâ€™s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newtonâ€™s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibnizâ€™ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibnizâ€™ notes are limited to early sections of Newtonâ€™s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newtonâ€™s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

In the historianâ€™s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historianâ€™s own position.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

The intermediate conclusion here is that the historian thinks that "a more cautious conclusion is called for" since it seems that Leibniz's work is not totally independent from that of Newton's.

However, in the last sentence, the historian states that Leibniz's notes referenced earlier sections of Newton's book which did not include Newton's concepts.
_________________

Don't be afraid to take a flying leap of faith.. If you risk nothing, than you gain nothing...

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2005, 11:14
any more takers......
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 78

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2005, 11:30
I would go with A.

First one supports the Historians Defence. Second one supports the opposing view.

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1057

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 0

Location: USA

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2005, 13:40
Definitely a tough one.

Between C & D, I will choose C.
_________________

"To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed."

- Bernard Edmonds

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 323 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2005, 16:43
I will go with C.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 323 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2005, 17:54

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 18

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

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2005, 01:39
A.

Both parts are Evidence.

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

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 713

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2005, 07:02
Think it is C

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 571

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Location: Munich,Germany

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2005, 22:10
I go with D here.

In C, the first bold part in fact, opposes the point of view which takes a cautious stand onthe subject. The first bold part infact, reinforces the view that both their works were independent.

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2005, 14:13
its A , simple functions of the sentences.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 78

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2005, 21:31
I would go with D. The first is clearly what the historian critizes. You can tell by "A more cautious conclusion than this is called for". The second is the evidence cited by the historian to support his own position or criticism of the earlier conclusion by others.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 582

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2005, 21:13
E for me..
Nakib post the OA plz?

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 95

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2005, 21:20
This one was between C and D for me. I choose D over C.

Why?

In C, the choice says that the first part is used to support an intermediate conclusion that the HISTORIAN DEFENDS....the historian OPPOSES this intermediate conclusion. SO C is out.
_________________

JAI HIND!

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

31 Dec 2005, 21:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by