To answer boldface questions, the best thing to do is to break down the structure of the passage (just like any other CR question).

First, the author (a historian) introduces a traditional viewpoint:

- "It has traditionally been thought that [Newton and Leibniz's discoveries of calculus] were independent."

Next, the historian explores the viewpoint of "several scholars," and explains how they arrived at this viewpoint:

- The scholars conclude that "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false."
- The scholars support this conclusion with two pieces of evidence:

1) Leibniz read a book that "includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques"
2) Leibniz' notes about Newton's book "were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques." (This is BF 1)

So far, we have a group of scholars who disagree with a traditional viewpoint. Specifically, the traditional view is that Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently. The scholars think they did NOT discover calculus independently, because Leibniz saw Newton's work before Leibniz wrote about calculus.

Now, the historian introduces ANOTHER viewpoint: his/her OWN thoughts on the matter.

- The historian concludes that "a more cautious conclusion than [the scholars' viewpoint] is called for."
- The author supports this conclusion by saying that "Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented." (This is BF 2)

So, the author disagrees with the scholars -- he/she thinks that the scholars went too far, because there's no proof that Leibniz read enough of Newton's book to get to the juicy calculus information.

The author's viewpoint is the main conclusion of the passage.

So, which answer choice fits with analysis above?

Nope, the first boldface is evidence to support the SCHOLARS' position, and the historian DISAGREES with that position. The second boldface supports the HISTORIAN'S viewpoint.

Eliminate (A).


Same issue as (A) for the first boldface -- that one supports a position with which the historian DISAGREES. The second boldface is evidence in support of the historian's position, not the position itself.

(B) is out.


Hmm... the first boldface provides support for the scholars' conclusion, but does that conclusion "provide support for the overall position that the historian defends"?

No, it does not. Again, the historian DISAGREES with the scholars' conclusion when stating his/her position.

Cross out (C).


This one looks alright! The first boldface supports the scholars' conclusion, which the historian argues against. The second is evidence to support the historian's argument.

Keep (D), and let's look at (E):


The explanation of the first boldface is the same as in (D), so no issues there.

The problem is with the second boldface, which doesn't substantiate scholars' evidence at all. The second boldface supports an argument that GOES AGAINST the scholars' position.

(E) is out, and (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Yes the OA is D. GMAT is playing hard !

Historian Position : A more cautious conclusion than this is called for. this means that historian has differed from the previous position and hence is calling for a CAUTIOUS conclusion.

Previous Position : Newton's and Leibnitz's discoveries were independent. (Traditional view)

Researcher's position : Historians are dead wrong. (Traditional view is false)

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.

Problem : The first bold part is the evidence in support of the Researcher’s position. Historians don't defend Researcher’s position.

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

Problem : The first bold part is the evidence in support of the Researcher’s position. Historians don't defend Researcher’s position. The second is an evidence NOT the 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.

Problem : The first bold part is the evidence in support of the Researcher's position which is NOT defended by the historian. There is no 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 historian’s own position.

Answer. The first bold part is the evidence in support of the Researcher's conclusion which is criticized by the historian . The second bold part is evidence in support of the historian’s 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.

Problem : The first bold part is the evidence in support of the Researcher’s position. The second bold part is the evidence itself NOT the "information that substantiates that evidence."
That was very lengthy !

D.

the first boldface section is used by the historian as evidence of why OTHER scholars claim that Liebniz did NOT invent his theories independent of Newton. however, the historian offers the second boldface section to show how taking the view of those other scholars is not necessarily wise.

I chose C but C is not OA.

OA is D

I think C is wrong because "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false" is not the overall position that author supports.

I agree that below bolded part is not overall position but conclusion that is drawn by historians.
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 is far better choice but I am not clear about the rubric part below. Is historian criticizing the conclusion "it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false" or just stating her conclusion? Actually I have found that both "defend" and "criticize" are awkward in answer choices.

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 historian’s own position.

I think its D......The use of however after th first boldface shows that this conclusion is criticized....And an opposing evidence is given another conclusion.....

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 Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ 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. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

In the historian’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 historian’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.

First of all I liked the way you fooled people by using the spoiler but did not reveal the answer :D

You got a good sense of humour

Anyway, going back to the question now.

We break the argument we will see there is an initial statement that both Newton and Leibniz came up with their findings independently. Refer 2nd line ("It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent")

And then historian presents evidence that Leibniz mentioned something about newton work blah blah but all this was mentioned before Leibniz started his work and hence Leibniz copied Newton's work -- This is an intermediate conclusion.

And after this Historian again says "A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however."

And then he presents evidence which goes against the intermediate conclusion.

Historian is ultimately saying that Leibniz came up with his findings independently.


So my answer C.

I would go for C.

The Historian is of the view that Leibniz's findings may not be completely independent, where he says that 'it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false', the traditional view being that both's findings were completely independent. So this is Historian's Intermediate conclusion.

Next, he presents a 'more cautious' or rather a diplomatic conclusion in the last statement that is widely accepted, but not true (according to him), which thus, provides evidence to oppose the intermediate conclusion i.e his opinion.

Nice one! Please provide OA with explanation.

I think it's either C or D, but I can't make out.

The name of the person is Gottfriend Leibniz, in case anyone wanted to know. Maybe that's why we got fried on this question. :D (Terrible, I know, but oh well)

Traditional view: Discoveries by Newton and Leibniz were independent.

Scholar's view: Traditional view is false.
Premises in support of scholar's view:
1) the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques
2) the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques

Historian's view: A more cautious conclusion than this (Scholar's conclusion) is called for, however.
Premise in support of Historian's view:
Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

Hence D.

well the intermediate conclusion does not really support the main position of the argument.Options A to C are clearly POE'ed.


Option D is clear as there is a criticism done by the author more so he provides an evidence too to support his claim.

In this kind of CR questions generally a split can be done.

of course the first bold portion is an evidence; the second do not add further information but the phrase only give us where the information are (highlights something - evidence). so D

1.56 minutes...
_________________

D it is. The author supports that the two discoveries were independent. If we are clear with the conclusion, then everything falls into place.

Hey, When did you give your GMAT..Are you saying that at later stages or in early stages of the verbal section you got bold face type?

defends and criticizes are the two major signposts for the correct answer for this BF CR. Loved the question. D it is.

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 Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ 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. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented. In the historian’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 historian’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.


I will post my reasoning in the reply section. Please tell me what's wrong with my reasoning.

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 Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ 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. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.


Assetion 1
Evidence to support assertion 1

Assertion 2 that attacks assertion 1
Evidence to support assertion 2

I narrowed my choice down to C and D and picked c eventually, although I doubted about some parts in C.

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. ---> overall position ???

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 historian’s own position.

The reason why I didn't pick D is "the historians". I think that the passage didn't clearly state that who attacks the asserion 1.

Please, tell me what's wrong with my reasong and state your reasoning.