Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 12:13 It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 12:13
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
705-805 (Hard)|   Bold Face CR|            
User avatar
RenB
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2022
Last visit: 02 Mar 2026
Posts: 389
Own Kudos:
1,468
Given Kudos: 304
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton  '26 (D) Booth '26 (D) Yale '26 (D) CBS '26 (A$$$) Darden '26 (WL) HBS '26 (D) Ross '26 (A$$$$) LBS '26 (D) Tuck '26 (A$$) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q90 V84 DI82
GPA: 3.74
WE:Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton  '26 (D) Booth '26 (D) Yale '26 (D) CBS '26 (A$$$) Darden '26 (WL) HBS '26 (D) Ross '26 (A$$$$) LBS '26 (D) Tuck '26 (A$$) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q90 V84 DI82
Posts: 389
Kudos: 1,468
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 14 Sep 2024, 21:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
OjhaShishir
GMATNinja
The existence of four holes is not evidence of three more holes.
Hi GMATNinja, you are correct that existence of four holes is not evidence of three more holes. However, how about the following line:

"flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played.".

If this is also not evidence, then I am wondering what is the purpose of the author to present this line at all? Is it just to confuse the reader into accepting this as evidence when it is not?
When discussing evidence, it is important to determine what EXACTLY the author is trying to support by the evidence in question. In this sentence, the author makes two statements in support of his/her main conclusion:

    #1: "The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and #2: The flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played."

The purpose of BOTH of these statements is to provide evidence for the conclusion that "the Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic musical scale."

So, it's not entirely accurate to say that #2 isn't evidence -- it IS, in fact, evidence. But it doesn't support #1 -- it directly supports the main conclusion of the argument.

I hope that helps!
Show more
GMATNinja KarishmaB AjiteshArun HarshR9 Had the word been 'since' instead of 'and':
#1: "The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and since
#2: The flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played."
Could I have said #2 is the evidence for #1 and thus option B would be correct in that case?

Also, does an evidence HAVE TO be factual? In this case for example, if the word changes to 'since', can i say it is an evidence for #1 or an evidence HAS TO be factual thus I can say 2 is an evidence for #1 but maybe reasoning/support for #1?
User avatar
DmitryFarberMPrep
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 03 Mar 2026
Posts: 3,005
Own Kudos:
8,624
 [2]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,005
Kudos: 8,624
 [2]
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 14 Sep 2024, 22:39
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja KarishmaB AjiteshArun HarshR9 Had the word been 'since' instead of 'and':
#1: "The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and since
#2: The flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played."
Could I have said #2 is the evidence for #1 and thus option B would be correct in that case?

Do you mean option D? B is already correct, and it says that the statement is NOT supported by evidence. In any case, D still wouldn't work. Sure, SINCE would turn the second part of the sentence into evidence for the first. But the order of support would be off. In logical order, the idea is must have had more holes --> could play diatonic scale --> diatonic scale was used. If we flip it to make "diatonic scale" support "flute had more holes," that wouldn't be a good setup for "diatonic scale was used." If we already knew they could play a diatonic scale, why would we bother to stop and establish that the flute then had more holes?

Also, does an evidence HAVE TO be factual? In this case for example, if the word changes to 'since', can i say it is an evidence for #1 or an evidence HAS TO be factual thus I can say 2 is an evidence for #1 but maybe reasoning/support for #1?

Yes, evidence has to be factual. An opinion can be a premise, but then they'd usually describe it as a "claim" or something like that, and not evidence. However, the part that you've labeled #2 is factual. It's saying that the kind of bone used was long enough for more holes. There's no indication that this is an opinion.
User avatar
djangobackend
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2024
Last visit: 31 Jan 2026
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 93
Posts: 91
Kudos: 19
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 15 Mar 2025, 22:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMPORTANT LEARNING - Usage of words "AND", "SINCE" etc. to link sentences.

"The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played"

Here the author VERY CAREFULLY has presented two DIFFERENT things - first - The entire flute must surely have had more holes AND and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played. It MAY look that he is writing 2nd as trying to present the reasoning for first but notice the usage of "AND" due to this, both sentences have been delinked or are individual and unrelated. Had the author used SINCE/BECAUSE to connect both then we would say that yes 2nd statement is used to support first (which is intermediate conclusion) only this subtle difference makes D wrong and B right.
User avatar
Aboyhasnoname
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2025
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 302
Own Kudos:
100
 [1]
Given Kudos: 64
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 302
Kudos: 100
 [1]
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 30 Jun 2025, 15:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
After thinking a lot on this highly controversial OG CR Passage... and reading various explainations... (none of which were satisfactory) I’ve arrived at this reasoning.....

Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven-note scale known as the diatonic scale, but when did the scale originate? A fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite has four holes, which are spaced in exactly the right way for playing the third through sixth notes of a diatonic scale. *The entire flute must surely have had more holes*, and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played. *Therefore, the Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic musical scale.*

What’s the difference between and opinion and conclusion?

Conclusion is derived from the facts. It has some logical inference.
The key word here is derived.

Opinion- Something out of the blue. Not derived from facts.


Now coming to the passage.

*Fact 1* A fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite has four holes, which are spaced in exactly the right way for playing the third through sixth notes of a diatonic scale.

*Opinion 1*
*The entire flute must surely have had more holes*, and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played.

First addressing, it has four holes statement...

If we see carefully... the author says... the flute discovered has 4 holes. Thats it.. he doesn’t uses this to arrive at the conclusion that it must be having 7 holes... so this is not the evidence. While we may see it as evidence... but the author is not using this...

The absence of the words since, therefore, because indicates this...

The case in which it could have been considered evidence.. When author says.. Because it had 4 holes that are in diatonic scale... or since it had this.. or the flute had 4 holes therefore.... We could have said that the author came to CONCLUSION

the author uses these separately....

Now coming to statement 2.
The flute must surely have had four holes, *and* the bong was long enough.

Again, here thr author is using it in separation... he is not saying that the flute must have had more holes, since it was made on a bone that was long enough......

He is saying... it must have had more holes, and it was long enough ... therefore it must have been diatomic scale.... So instead of using this to infer that the flute must have had more holes... he uses this to infer that the flute probably used diatonic music scale...

Here we should keep in mind ... More holes doesnt mean Diaotnic scale... there is a grey distinction...

*The Flow of the passage is something like*
Fact 1
Opnion 1
Fact 2
All three to arrive at Conclusion...

Author is using Fact 1, Opinion 1, Fact 2, to derive Conclusion....

But we are thinking that the author is using Fact 1 & 2 to derive at Opinion 1 and conclusion...

Fact 1 & 2 may very well be evidence... but the author is not treating them as evidence....
User avatar
Aboyhasnoname
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2025
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 302
Own Kudos:
100
 [1]
Given Kudos: 64
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 302
Kudos: 100
 [1]
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 30 Jun 2025, 15:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D. The first is a preliminary conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence presented elsewhere in the argument given; the second is the main conclusion that this preliminary conclusion supports.

So the statement that is... it must have had additional holes.... Is not drawn in the basis of the preceding and succeeding statement... the absence of since, therefore, because tells us this.



Aboyhasnoname
After thinking a lot on this highly controversial OG CR Passage... and reading various explainations... (none of which were satisfactory) I’ve arrived at this reasoning.....

Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven-note scale known as the diatonic scale, but when did the scale originate? A fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite has four holes, which are spaced in exactly the right way for playing the third through sixth notes of a diatonic scale. *The entire flute must surely have had more holes*, and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played. *Therefore, the Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic musical scale.*

What’s the difference between and opinion and conclusion?

Conclusion is derived from the facts. It has some logical inference.
The key word here is derived.

Opinion- Something out of the blue. Not derived from facts.


Now coming to the passage.

*Fact 1* A fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite has four holes, which are spaced in exactly the right way for playing the third through sixth notes of a diatonic scale.

*Opinion 1*
*The entire flute must surely have had more holes*, and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played.

First addressing, it has four holes statement...

If we see carefully... the author says... the flute discovered has 4 holes. Thats it.. he doesn’t uses this to arrive at the conclusion that it must be having 7 holes... so this is not the evidence. While we may see it as evidence... but the author is not using this...

The absence of the words since, therefore, because indicates this...

The case in which it could have been considered evidence.. When author says.. Because it had 4 holes that are in diatonic scale... or since it had this.. or the flute had 4 holes therefore.... We could have said that the author came to CONCLUSION

the author uses these separately....

Now coming to statement 2.
The flute must surely have had four holes, *and* the bong was long enough.

Again, here thr author is using it in separation... he is not saying that the flute must have had more holes, since it was made on a bone that was long enough......

He is saying... it must have had more holes, and it was long enough ... therefore it must have been diatomic scale.... So instead of using this to infer that the flute must have had more holes... he uses this to infer that the flute probably used diatonic music scale...

Here we should keep in mind ... More holes doesnt mean Diaotnic scale... there is a grey distinction...

*The Flow of the passage is something like*
Fact 1
Opnion 1
Fact 2
All three to arrive at Conclusion...

Author is using Fact 1, Opinion 1, Fact 2, to derive Conclusion....

But we are thinking that the author is using Fact 1 & 2 to derive at Opinion 1 and conclusion...

Fact 1 & 2 may very well be evidence... but the author is not treating them as evidence....
Show more
User avatar
Gg153
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2024
Last visit: 02 Feb 2026
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
52
Given Kudos: 102
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 99
Kudos: 52
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 30 Jun 2025, 21:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Quote:

So, it's not entirely accurate to say that #2 isn't evidence -- it IS, in fact, evidence. But it doesn't support #1 -- it directly supports the main conclusion of the argument.
Show more
Does #2 directly support the main conclusion of the argument because it says "probably"?
GMATNinja
OjhaShishir
GMATNinja
The existence of four holes is not evidence of three more holes.
Hi GMATNinja, you are correct that existence of four holes is not evidence of three more holes. However, how about the following line:

"flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played.".

If this is also not evidence, then I am wondering what is the purpose of the author to present this line at all? Is it just to confuse the reader into accepting this as evidence when it is not?
When discussing evidence, it is important to determine what EXACTLY the author is trying to support by the evidence in question. In this sentence, the author makes two statements in support of his/her main conclusion:

    #1: "The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and
    #2: The flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played."

The purpose of BOTH of these statements is to provide evidence for the conclusion that "the Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic musical scale."

So, it's not entirely accurate to say that #2 isn't evidence -- it IS, in fact, evidence. But it doesn't support #1 -- it directly supports the main conclusion of the argument.

I hope that helps!
Show more
User avatar
licrolicro
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2025
Last visit: 27 Sep 2025
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 38
Kudos: 7
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 11 Jul 2025, 20:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument Structure:

Background Information: Introduction of the diatonic scale and the question of its origin.

Evidence Presentation: Description of the bone flute fragment with four holes spaced correctly for part of a diatonic scale.

First Bold Statement: "The entire flute must surely have had more holes" - This is an inference drawn from the evidence about the fragment.

Additional Support: The bone was long enough for a complete diatonic scale.

Second Bold Statement: "Therefore, the Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic musical scale" - This is the main conclusion.

Roles of Boldfaced Portions:

First Bold: This is an intermediate conclusion/inference drawn from the physical evidence (the fragment with four holes). It bridges the specific evidence to the broader conclusion.

Second Bold: This is the main conclusion of the argument, supported by the previous statements including the first bold portion.

Evaluating Options:

A) Incorrect - The first is not evidence but an inference, and the second is not a hypothesis being undermined.
B) Incorrect - The first is not an unsupported opinion but a reasonable inference from the evidence.
C) Incorrect - The first doesn't describe a discovery undermining a position; the argument isn't countering any position.
D) Correct -

First is a preliminary conclusion (inference about complete flute) based on the evidence (fragment)

Second is the main conclusion supported by this preliminary conclusion
E) Incorrect - The second is the main conclusion, not a subsidiary one, and the first isn't direct evidence but an inference.

Why D is Correct:

The argument's logical flow is:

Evidence (flute fragment) →

Preliminary conclusion (first bold: complete flute had more holes) →

Additional reasoning (bone length) →

Main conclusion (second bold: Neanderthals used diatonic scale)

This matches option D's description perfectly.

Answer: D
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,793
Given Kudos: 2,129
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,793
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 15 Jul 2025, 15:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sanya511
GMATNinja

Quote:


So, it's not entirely accurate to say that #2 isn't evidence -- it IS, in fact, evidence. But it doesn't support #1 -- it directly supports the main conclusion of the argument.

Does #2 directly support the main conclusion of the argument because it says "probably"?
Show more
According to the author, having more holes is EVIDENCE that the Neanderthals who made the flute used a diatonic musical scale, but it is not PROOF that those Neanderthals used a diatonic scale. The word author uses the word "probably" simply to acknowledge that it isn't a sure thing.
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 671
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 6,431
Location: India
Posts: 671
Kudos: 170
Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven- 15 Jul 2025, 21:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks DmitryFarber for this helpful explanation.

"The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played."

Can we say that first BF is just an opinion with no support just on the basis of argument structure and words used?

1. It is followed by "AND" which indicates that next line is another support on top of the first BF to support the second BF but doesn't support the first BF.

2. The sentence following it also uses "these additional holes" which should refer to "more holes" in the first BF so it seems like reverse logic if we think that this sentence provides support to the first BF.

In summary:
First BF + following line --> Second BF

Please let me know if above two logics are enough to reject (D) and accept (B).


DmitryFarber
GMATNinja KarishmaB AjiteshArun HarshR9 Had the word been 'since' instead of 'and':
#1: "The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and since
#2: The flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played."
Could I have said #2 is the evidence for #1 and thus option B would be correct in that case?

Do you mean option D? B is already correct, and it says that the statement is NOT supported by evidence. In any case, D still wouldn't work. Sure, SINCE would turn the second part of the sentence into evidence for the first. But the order of support would be off. In logical order, the idea is must have had more holes --> could play diatonic scale --> diatonic scale was used. If we flip it to make "diatonic scale" support "flute had more holes," that wouldn't be a good setup for "diatonic scale was used." If we already knew they could play a diatonic scale, why would we bother to stop and establish that the flute then had more holes?

Also, does an evidence HAVE TO be factual? In this case for example, if the word changes to 'since', can i say it is an evidence for #1 or an evidence HAS TO be factual thus I can say 2 is an evidence for #1 but maybe reasoning/support for #1?

Yes, evidence has to be factual. An opinion can be a premise, but then they'd usually describe it as a "claim" or something like that, and not evidence. However, the part that you've labeled #2 is factual. It's saying that the kind of bone used was long enough for more holes. There's no indication that this is an opinion.
Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
495 posts
bhanu29
358 posts