Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash

thanks so much Mike,
I have another question .
At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature.
the main verb of this sentence is argued.
in other words, the sentence intend to point out the opinion of Dr.Pannikar, while the content of opinion that Meyer's Rash was viral is the object of the sentence.

please point out my fault...

thanks a lot
have a nice day.
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond.

Yes, the content of the opinion could be stated as "Meyer's Rash was viral" or "Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus." That's an explanation. Technically, Dr. Pannikar is making an argument that this is the explanation. It would be unfair to call this an "opinion," because presumably Dr. Pannikar has some sort of evidence for taking this position---typically, if just one scientist or researcher is making an argument that is not in agreement with the rest of the field, that lone researcher has to feel she has some very good reasons for making that lone stand. For this reason, the word "opinion" sounds like an unfair criticism of the seriousness of his position. A rational argument based on evidence is something that has considerably more logical weight than does a mere opinion.

Think about it this way. Suppose you asked me, "What does GMAT Club do X?" Suppose I don't know, so I go off and ask an expert, maybe Bunuel or souvik101990, two exceptionally bright individuals who work for GC. Let's say that souvik101990 tells me the answer. Then I come back to you, and I say the following:
My statement = "souvik101990 said that GC does X because of Y and Z."
That statement is an explanation. We would be hypertechnical to say that it is a statement of what souvik101990, and the content of what he said was the explanation. Hypertechnically, that is true, but nobody talks that way. In practice, everyone would call my statement, the whole thing, an explanation.

The same is true of the BF sentence in the prompt.
At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature
If we want to be hypertechnical, again, we would say that the statement is the fact that Dr. Pannikar made an argument, and the content of his argument is an explanation. Again, this is super-literally true, but absolutely no one talks this way. In practice, people would refer to this entire statement as an explanation. Suppose person #1 say, "What causes Meyer's Rash?" In other words, person #1 is looking for an explanation for Meyer's Rash. Suppose person #2 said, "Dr. Pannikar argues that Meyer's Rash is viral in nature." This would be a completely logical and satisfactory response to the question. Person #1 asked for an explanation and person #2 provided the explanation.

Does all this make sense?

Take very good care of yourself, my friend.

Mike

thanks so much mike,
further questions,
1/ opinion
what you mentioned about opinion is a one in science research, right ?
because , I think in real lift, people can raise an opinion without evidence, hypothetical dialog,
Mike: "Zoezhuyan, I guess you are a man"
Zoezhuyan: "hahaha, I am a female "
see, I raised an opinion without evidence.


2/ Explanation
I totally got what your mentioned, and more clearly
However, I am a little confused need your further explanation. say,
Jane : "what is Magoosh ?"
Marry : "Zoezhuyan thinks of Magoosh as a professional platform for some exams, such as GMAT, LAST, SAT, GRE"

obviously, Marry's reply is an explanation, because explained the WH question

again:
Jane : "Marry assumed this book is $200 ~ $250 "
Zoezhuyan: "I don't think so, this book is $ 150".

in my opinion , here Zoezhuyan raised an opinion, ( based on evidence that maybe zoezhuyan bought it, or whatever)

so , I thinks, whether the reply is an explanation or opinion, depends on the previous information/question/statement.

back to this question,
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature.

according to my interpretation, the BF looks LEAST explanation, because the previous is a statement rather than a WH question.

I have no idea where my fault
appreciate if you point out.

thanks in advance
have a wonderful day.
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan

How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond.

If a question is followed by an answer, the nature of the question may give us some insight into the nature of an answer. In general, though, in formats that are not in Q & A form, the content of the previous statement is usually irrelevant to the logical nature of any statement. Looking at what comes before the BF statement is not a helpful strategy.

First of all, you are correct, in real life, people express opinions all the time, many about matters of taste for which there really is no objective measure ('I think this is the greatest movie ever," "I think this is the greatest novel of the 20th century," "I hope this team will win the World Series next year," "I think this is the best wine," etc.) The information expressed in such opinions can make everyday conversation enjoyable, but opinions, especially about matters of taste, will really have no place on the GMAT CR.

Similarly, someone may ask about objective information, and the other person simply may not be sure, and give an uncertain statement, as in your example, "I don't think so, this book is $150." I wouldn't call this exactly the same as an "opinion." When I express my "opinion," I know that I am expressing my own unique subjective view & preferences; in some sense, there is no right or wrong for an opinion about a matter of taste. By contrast, if I make an uncertain statement, especially if I have factual basis for my statement, then I am attempting to convey the truth, but my statement may fall short of that mark. Even in the hypothetical dialogue in which I was trying to guess your gender, I would call that an uncertain statement, not an opinion, because theoretically, I was trying to be correct. (BTW, I never met a male named "Zoe," so I had been assuming that you are female!) I don't recall ever seeing uncertain statements in the GMAT CR.

There is not necessarily a sharp dividing line between an opinion and an uncertain statement. In particular, there is little distinction between an uncertain statement that has virtually no real evidence behind it and a mere opinion. For example, if an uneducated American with almost no knowledge of China said, "I think all people from China are X, Y, and Z," then this statement would probably not accord with reality at all and, even though it is in the form of an uncertain statement, it is really an opinion.

Now, if I tell you that someone argued something, this is no longer purely opinion. An argument is not automatically true, but an argument is a set of logical statement of analytical reasoning. If an intelligent person makes an argument, that is something to be respected considerably more than an opinion. We don't automatically know that it's true, but we imagine that the person making the argument has some logical basis for taking this position. An argument is NOT an opinion. Also, arguments are the very stuff of the GMAT CR. Every GMAT CR prompt contains at least one argument, maybe more, and maybe even arguments about arguments.

Dr. Pannikar is a medical doctor. We don't know much about him, but if a medical doctor makes an argument on the GMAT CR, we can reasonably assume that this argument is based on not only his knowledge of medicine and disease but also his years of experience as a doctor. Again, what he says is not necessarily true, but if a medical doctor makes an argument about something in the medical field, this is certainly something that we non-medical people should respect. This is definitely several notches above an "opinion."

In particular, "Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature." This has all the authority of someone in the medical sciences, and it proposes a cause (i.e. an explanation) for Meyer's Rash. It doesn't matter at all what was said before it. The previous sentence in the CR prompt simply gave us background information. The fact that something is a disease automatically means that the medical science would like to know the cause of the disease: knowing the cause of each and every diseases is one of the principal goals of the medical sciences, because when we know the cause, that knowledge makes it much more likely that we can find the cure. Some people would say that learning the causes of diseases is the very reason the medical sciences exist.

Now, we can't automatically assume that Dr. Pannikar is correct, but based on all his knowledge and experience, he is proposing one possible explanation. His argument is consider more sound than my guess would be---my unsubstantiated guess would be little better than an opinion. What he argues is one possible valid explanation. As it turns out, the argument concludes that Dr. Pannikar's explanation is correct.

Does all this make sense?

Have a wonderful day!

Mike

thanks mike,
I think I need read again later, not easy for me to get your idea thorough.

and really hope my poor , impolitic gender example does not offend you.. it's not my intention
I am sorry if it offended you..
I purely exemplified a hypothetical dialog, and hope the example is easy to discuss.. although it is ridiculous...

please forget my poor, impolitic example

(BTW, hard to send PM to you )

have a wonderful day

>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

My friend, you did not offend me at all. There was absolutely nothing wrong with your example.

I was merely letting you know that I already surmised your gender, only because the name "Zoe" is, in my experience, always a female name.

Take care!
Mike

Official Explanation

The bold sentence talks about Dr. Pannikar's argument, that Meyer's Rash was viral. At the time, he was the only one saying that, but as the medical investigator explains, his view is now the generally accepted conclusion.

(A) is the credited answer. At the time, Pannikar was alone in giving this explanation, but the main conclusion is that, now, this explanation has been vindicated by science.

(E) is close, but not correct. Technically, the bold statement itself is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that what Dr. Pannikar said in the bold statement really turns out to be true.

(B) is wrong. The bold statement presents, according to the medical investigator, what now is accepted as the truth. Therefore, the medical investigator does not oppose it.

(C) is wrong: the bold statement is an explanation, not a finding that needs to be explained.

(D) is wrong: the bold statement does not provide evidence. One person saying something is right does not constitute proof in science. The bold statement is an explanation, not evidence for anything.

The reasons to choose A over D are wafer thin.Not a good question.

redskull1 - I think that is the real deal in tough question in GMAT. However this one is pretty straight. I think you should read above comments. May be you are overlooking some facts.

Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.

the easiest part is to eliminate the 3 choices B,C,E and yet this one is tricky. A and D are both really good competitor.

IMO, Arguing something is something is not an "evidence" , evidence must mean some substantial Output/data/results that could prove what you're arguing for/against. Dr. Pannikar correctly argued that the disease was viral, but did she/he provide any proof/evidence?

hence, By PoE. A must be the one. let me know if this makes sense.

I'm confused with A and B options. I am highly inclined towards option B as judgement means "the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions." which explains it better than A which is an explanation to the argument which came out to be correct.

I think a lot of people discussing whether A is an "explanation" or not.
Stepping aside from that debate, we can actually choose A based on POE.

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct. --> Looks okay, hold on for now
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes. --> Incorrect, the judgement does not oppose the boldfaced statement
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain. --> Incorrect, it is not a finding
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument. --> This one is somewhat tricky. It is true that the boldfaced statement supports the main conclusion. However, I think everyone agrees that the boldfaced statement is NOT an evidence. We know that the conclusion was not proven until all anti-fungal medications were found ineffective. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE. Dr. Pannikar's opinion is not an evidence. So, incorrect.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument --> Incorrect, it is not the main conclusion

A is the best option and it is the answer.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.