Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 17:07 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 17:07 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. 
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
14 Mar 2024, 06:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
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:
63% (02:07) correct
37%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 1077
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Letter to the editor:
Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does. However, since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food. Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?
A. The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.
B. The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.
C. The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.
D. The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.
E. The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.
Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does. However, since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food. Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?
A. The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.
B. The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.
C. The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.
D. The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.
E. The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.
Trying to understand why the right answer is right?
GMAT Club Tests explanations walk through concepts, shortcuts, and common traps on many questions.
See how →
14 Mar 2024, 16:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
The author says that the organic farming is bad .
He opposes to the view that the organic farming is good.
"Makes a concession " means show some merits .
The first statement shows some merits to the argument that the organic farming is good which is opposed by the author. The first statement says one good point about the organic farming.
The second statement starts with the "premise" marker "since" and is indeed a premise to the conclusion that the organic farming is not that great.
A is answer.
MartyMurray
Posted from my mobile device
He opposes to the view that the organic farming is good.
"Makes a concession " means show some merits .
The first statement shows some merits to the argument that the organic farming is good which is opposed by the author. The first statement says one good point about the organic farming.
The second statement starts with the "premise" marker "since" and is indeed a premise to the conclusion that the organic farming is not that great.
A is answer.
MartyMurray
Posted from my mobile device
General Discussion
15 Mar 2024, 15:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
sayan640
You've nailed exactly what's going on.
Nice work.
15 Mar 2024, 18:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Letter to the editor:
Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does. However, since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food. Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
The passage opens with a statement about organic farming, one that presents a benefit of organic farming:
Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does.
That statement is followed by the contrast word "however," which introduces a contrasting fact about organic farming, one that involves a drawback of organic farming:
since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food.
Then, the next statement expands on that contrasting statement providing more details about organic farming requiring more land:
Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates.
Finally, the passage ends with the following main conclusion that's supported by the preceding two statements:
organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment
So, in summary, the passage opens with a statement that contrasts with everything else said and closes with a main conclusion that follows from statements that contrast with the first statement.
Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?
This question is a Boldface question, and the correct answer will accurately describe the roles of the two boldfaced portions of the passage.
A. The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.
"A concession to the view that the argument opposes" means, basically, "information presented in the context of an argument that supports a conclusion that the argument opposes." So, we see that the first boldfaced portion is correct because it supports the conclusion that organic farming is better for the environment, which the argument presented by the passage basically opposes.
The second part of this choice is also correct because the second boldfaced portion is a premise that supports the main conclusion "organic farmion is not necessarily better for the environment." After all, the fact "since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food," indicates that organic farming is not necesarily better for the environment.
So, both parts of this choice are correct.
Keep.
B. The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.
This choice is tricky because it's partially correct. After all, the first boldfaced portion does identify a benefit of organic farming, and the second identifies a potential drawback of organic farming.
At the same time this choice has a failure point in that organic farming is not "a course of action that the argument recommends." Rather, the argument supports the conclusion that "organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment."
Eliminate.
C. The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.
The first does not present a position the argument seeks to establish but, rather, presents a fact that the rest of the passage is in contrast to.
Also, the second does not challenge the first. In other words, it does not indicate that the first is not true. Rather, it says something that contrasts with the first without challenging the first.
Eliminate.
D. The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.
The first boldfaced portion presents a fact that could be used to support the position that organic farming is better for the environment. So, while the first is not exaclty "an argument," we could potentially argue that the first part of this choice is correct.
At the same time, the second clearly is not an assumption supporting the position supported by the first, that organic farming is better for the environment. In fact, the second supports a contrasting position, that organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
Eliminate.
E. The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.
Notice that the first boldface portion does not state a conclusion that the letter writer opposes. After all, the letter writer never says anything against "Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does." Rather, the author states as fact that organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals and then indicates that, even though that fact is true, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
Accordingly, the second does not contradict the first, meaning it doesn't go against the first. Rather, it contrasts with the first and supports a conclusion that's true even though the first is true.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does. However, since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food. Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
The passage opens with a statement about organic farming, one that presents a benefit of organic farming:
Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does.
That statement is followed by the contrast word "however," which introduces a contrasting fact about organic farming, one that involves a drawback of organic farming:
since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food.
Then, the next statement expands on that contrasting statement providing more details about organic farming requiring more land:
Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates.
Finally, the passage ends with the following main conclusion that's supported by the preceding two statements:
organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment
So, in summary, the passage opens with a statement that contrasts with everything else said and closes with a main conclusion that follows from statements that contrast with the first statement.
Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?
This question is a Boldface question, and the correct answer will accurately describe the roles of the two boldfaced portions of the passage.
A. The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.
"A concession to the view that the argument opposes" means, basically, "information presented in the context of an argument that supports a conclusion that the argument opposes." So, we see that the first boldfaced portion is correct because it supports the conclusion that organic farming is better for the environment, which the argument presented by the passage basically opposes.
The second part of this choice is also correct because the second boldfaced portion is a premise that supports the main conclusion "organic farmion is not necessarily better for the environment." After all, the fact "since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food," indicates that organic farming is not necesarily better for the environment.
So, both parts of this choice are correct.
Keep.
B. The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.
This choice is tricky because it's partially correct. After all, the first boldfaced portion does identify a benefit of organic farming, and the second identifies a potential drawback of organic farming.
At the same time this choice has a failure point in that organic farming is not "a course of action that the argument recommends." Rather, the argument supports the conclusion that "organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment."
Eliminate.
C. The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.
The first does not present a position the argument seeks to establish but, rather, presents a fact that the rest of the passage is in contrast to.
Also, the second does not challenge the first. In other words, it does not indicate that the first is not true. Rather, it says something that contrasts with the first without challenging the first.
Eliminate.
D. The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.
The first boldfaced portion presents a fact that could be used to support the position that organic farming is better for the environment. So, while the first is not exaclty "an argument," we could potentially argue that the first part of this choice is correct.
At the same time, the second clearly is not an assumption supporting the position supported by the first, that organic farming is better for the environment. In fact, the second supports a contrasting position, that organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
Eliminate.
E. The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.
Notice that the first boldface portion does not state a conclusion that the letter writer opposes. After all, the letter writer never says anything against "Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does." Rather, the author states as fact that organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals and then indicates that, even though that fact is true, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.
Accordingly, the second does not contradict the first, meaning it doesn't go against the first. Rather, it contrasts with the first and supports a conclusion that's true even though the first is true.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: A
