Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven-

Official Explanation

Argument Construction

To determine what roles the two portions in boldface play, it is useful to look first for certain “inference indicator” words: words that indicate that what follows is a premise (words like because and since) or a conclusion (words like thus and therefore).

Here, there is only one, therefore; it immediately precedes the second boldfaced portion. This indicates that that portion is a conclusion. Because of this, we can effectively rule out answer choice A.

However, we must investigate the rest of the argument to determine whether this is the main conclusion. If it is, we can rule out answer choice E as well. Alternatively, it may be an intermediate conclusion, in which case E would be the correct answer.

To determine which sort of conclusion it is, ask whether this conclusion is used in support of another claim in the argument. This conclusion is not, which makes it the main conclusion. This rules out answer choice E.

To make a correct choice among options B, C, and D, we must determine the role of the first highlighted portion.

A. This choice is incorrect because the second boldfaced portion is a conclusion drawn in the argument. It is not, of course, a hypothesis that the first boldfaced portion is used to undermine. Furthermore, the argument presents no data to confirm the first boldfaced portion.

B. Correct. The first boldfaced portion is not a conclusion; it is merely an assertion that is not supported by any claims presented in the argument. This portion, along with the statement immediately following it, are offered in support of the second boldfaced portion. This second boldfaced portion is the argument's main conclusion.

C. The first boldfaced portion does not undermine a position that the argument is directed against. In fact, the argument is not explicitly directed against any position. Note that the argument is rhetorically positive, arguing for a specific position rather than against one.

D. The argument provides no evidence in support of the first boldfaced position.

E. As noted above, this cannot be the correct answer because the second boldfaced portion is in fact the main conclusion of the argument.

The correct answer is B.

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? - The author starts off with posing a question. When did the diatonic scale, the base of most Western music since the Renaissance, 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. - We’re presented with evidence of a fragment of musical instrument from a Neanderthal campsite. (Think the answer to the initial question will be “a long, long time ago”.) A fragment of a bone flute has been excavated at a Neanderthal campsite. The fragment has four holes. The four holes are spaced perfectly for playing the middle notes of a diatonic scale.

The entire flute must surely have had more holes, - The author makes a claim here. He’s certain that the intact flute must have had more holes. (a pretty big claim with no support yet)

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. - the intact bone from which the flute was made was long enough. Long enough for what? For the additional holes (“more holes” mentioned in the first half of the sentence) to enable playing a complete diatonic scale.

Therefore, the Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic musical scale. - The author concludes that the Neanderthals used a diatonic scale. (We get an answer to the initial question. When did the diatonic scale originate? Well, it might be older still, but thousands of years ago the Neanderthals probably used it.

Gist: An excavated fragment of a bone flute has four holes that are perfectly spaced to play the middle notes of a diatonic scale (support). The flute must have had more holes (an opinion that supports the conclusion). The original intact bone was long enough for the additional holes to allow playing a complete diatonic scale (support). Thus, the diatonic scale probably goes back at least to the Neanderthal period (conclusion).


The first boldfaced portion is an opinion of the author. The author uses this portion to support his conclusion.

The entire argument is geared towards the second boldfaced portion. It is the conclusion of the passage.


A. The first is presented as evidence that is confirmed by data presented elsewhere in the argument given; the second states a hypothesis that this evidence is used to undermine.
Incorrect. Both parts of this option are incorrect.
The first is not presented as evidence. It is an opinion of the author. Moreover, there is no data in the argument that confirms this opinion. (We might be tempted to believe that there is evidence to support this portion. Even then, we can comfortably see that the first portion is not confirmed by any data.)
While the second portion could be considered a hypothesis, the first portion (“this evidence”) does not undermine the second. In fact, the first portion supports the second.

B. The first is an opinion, for which no supporting evidence is presented in the argument given, that is used to support the main conclusion of the argument; the second is that main conclusion.
Correct. Both parts of this option are correct.
The first is indeed an opinion. And there is no supporting evidence for this portion.
Let’s spend some time here. There could be concerns that either of the following supports this boldfaced portion:

1. The four holes “are spaced in exactly the right way for playing the third through sixth notes of a diatonic scale”
Is the fact that the flute has four holes that are spaced in a particular way evidence of more holes? It isn’t. Let’s try to understand why not.

Let’s consider the following situation:
Say, walking down a street, a person sees a fragment of a piece of paper with the letters ‘ohn Smit’ on it. Say the person thinks: these letters exactly fit the middle portion of a common name: John Smith. And then the person concludes: it looks reasonable to say that the entire piece of paper must have had more letters.

What must this person walking down the street have assumed to make the above conclusion?
The person must have assumed that the complete piece of paper spelled out John Smith. (Think about it. How else could he have made the above conclusion?)

The train of thought:

1. Oh look, a fragment of a piece of paper with the letters ‘ohn Smit’ on it.
2. Hmm, these letters exactly fit the middle portion of a common name: John Smith.
3. Oh then, the complete piece of paper must have spelled out John Smith. (assumption)
4. The entire piece of paper must have had more letters. (conclusion)

Similarly, here’s another situation, closer to the one in the passage:
Say, walking down a street, a person with basic knowledge of flutes and the diatonic scale sees a fragment of a flute that has four holes spaced in exactly the right way for playing the third through sixth notes of a diatonic scale lying on the road. Say the person realizes that the four holes are spaced exactly like the middle holes of a diatonic scale. And then the person concludes: the entire flute must have had more holes.

What must this person have assumed to make the above conclusion about the flute? The person must have assumed that the entire flute must have played a diatonic scale.

This guy’s complete train of thought:

1. Oh look, a fragment of a flute with four holes in it.
2. Hmm, the four holes are spaced exactly like the middle holes of a diatonic scale.
3. Oh then, the entire flute must have played a diatonic scale. (assumption)
4. Therefore, the entire flute must have had more holes.

So, the spacing of the four holes supports the conclusion that the flute has more holes only if the person makes the above assumption.

In the actual argument, for the spacing of the four holes to support the claim that the flute had more holes, the author MUST have assumed that the flute was built to play the diatonic scale. I.e, the Neanderthals must have used a diatonic musical scale.

Basically, for the previous portion to support the first boldfaced portion, the author must have assumed what he went on to conclude - the conclusion of the given argument is that Neanderthals used a diatonic scale. Does it make sense for us to say that the author first assumed something that he eventually concludes? Not really.

Let’s note one more aspect. The argument starts with the question of when the diatonic scale originated. Would the author then assume that the scale was already in existence during the Neanderthal period if he’s actually set out to figure out when the scale originated? Does not seem logical either.

For these reasons, the first boldfaced portion is not supported by the portion that precedes it.

2. “[T]he flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played”
Let's look at this portion carefully:
Does it state that 'the flute was made from a bone long enough to have seven holes'? It doesn't.
It states that the intact bone was long enough for THESE additional holes (referring to the holes mentioned before the 'and') to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played. This portion builds on top of what was mentioned in the first clause in this sentence.
The entire flute must have had more holes, and, what's more, the intact bone from which the flute was made was long enough for these additional holes ('the entire flute must have had additional holes' is already established by this point) to have played a complete scale.
The precise wording of this portion highlights that it does not support the first boldface portion, rather builds on top of it.

The second portion is indeed the main conclusion of the argument. The first portion does support it.

C. The first describes a discovery as undermining the position against which the argument is directed; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
Incorrect. Part one is incorrect, part two is correct.

Wrong on so many levels. There isn’t any ‘position’ in the passage ‘against which the argument is directed’. The argument builds in one direction - to finally conclude that the Neanderthals probably used a diatonic scale. The first boldfaced portion does not ‘undermine’ any ‘position’. It supports the main conclusion. It is not a ‘discovery’. It is an opinion.

The second part is correct. The second portion is indeed the main conclusion of the argument.

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.
Incorrect.Part one is incorrect, part two is correct.

This is the option that test-takers most commonly select for this question (At the time of posting this question, 51% test-takers had selected this option on GMATClub). As discussed in the explanation of option B, the first portion is merely an opinion without any evidence to support it.

The second part is correct.

E. The first provides evidence to support the main conclusion of the argument; the second states a subsidiary conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion stated earlier in the argument.
Incorrect. Both parts of this option are incorrect.

The first portion does support the main conclusion. However, it does not provide any ‘evidence’. It simply states an opinion.

The second portion IS the main conclusion of the argument. It is not a subsidiary conclusion.


This is a fairly tricky question, and the differentiation between whether there is evidence for the first boldfaced portion can be confusing. You might want to go through the GMATClub thread of this question that has some good explanations by experts.
Here are two other official variations of this question:

• Boldface question with a different initial portion in boldface
• Differently worded Strengthen question on the same subject matter

If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

BF #1: The instrument surely must have had more holes.
This, along with the immediately following clause are the basis for the conclusion i.e - BF #2

To those that chose Option D, it was a trap option. Breaking it down, BF# 1 is more of a statement than a conclusion(preliminary/intermediate) mainly because there isn't any information used to derive the statement. Conclusions are always derived statements. Also, I noted a few things within the question that may cause one to incline towards option D - The usage of a conclusion marker (surely) in BF#1; And The presence of " A fragment of a bone flute..." in the second sentence of the argument.

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?

Let's look at that portion carefully:

Does it state that 'the flute was made from a bone long enough to have seven holes'? It doesn't.

It states that the intact bone was long enough for THESE additional holes (referring to the holes mentioned before the 'and') to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played. This portion builds on top of what was mentioned in the first clause in this sentence.

The entire flute must have had more holes, and, what's more, the intact bone from which the flute was made was long enough for these additional holes ('the entire flute must have had additional holes' is already established by this point) to have played a complete scale.

The precise wording of this portion highlights that it does not support the first boldface portion, rather builds on top of it.

Food for thought: does ''the flute was made from a bone long enough to have seven holes'' support the first boldface portion? Here's another official question (Strengthen) based on a very similar passage that will help answer this question.­

The first is neither evidence nor discovery. A, C, and E are out.
First is opinion for which no evidence is presented in argument or preliminary conclusion for which evidence presented in argument elsewhere?
Though I did it wrong, I realized that there is no evidence present for more holes in flute.
B is ahead of D.
B is winning choice.

Can an expert explain how it is B? B says that the first is an opinion, for which no supporting evidence is presented in the argument given.

This is where it is confusing because as per me, there definitely is supporting evidence provided: "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".

Also, why not D?

Hi Experts,

I have a question.

Why B is correct?

I understand that the first bold fact sentence is supported by the previous sentence "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".

So, I think D is correct.

Please explain.

Thank you.

Hi OjhaShishir,

I think "flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes to have allowed a complete diatonic scale to be played.". >> is the evidence for the main conclusion, not for the opinion of three more holes.

Thanks TheGMATCo, this is where I am having such a difficult time in understanding this difference between "supporting" and "building on top" .

By the way, if the sentence in the paragraph was:

The entire flute must surely have had more holes, and since 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.

In that case, could we have concluded that the second sentence is "supporting" the boldface? Is it a difference of "and" vs "since"?

Hi GMATNinja

I am still not clear why the length is not treated as an evidence? is it just because it does not have since, because but it has "and".
My point is " there must be additional holes" and then it says the length was such that makes it possible - why is this not considered as an evidence?
How to avoid such confusions in actual exams?

 

­The first BF is based on flawed reasoning, not flawed evidence.

The author states that a fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite has four holes. Immediately after that sentence, the author says, "The entire flute must surely have had more holes".

Was there any evidence or support leading us to that statement? Nope. The author is simply reasoning that if the fragment has four holes, then the ENTIRE flute must have more than four holes. Sure, there's some logic and reasoning there, but there's no EVIDENCE to back it up.

Now look at the second half of that sentence: "the flute was made from a bone that was long enough for these additional holes..." What additional holes? The ones that the author assumes must surely be there. The author doesn't say, "The entire flute must have had more holes BECAUSE..."; instead, the author cites the first BF and the stuff about the bone length as two separate things that we should accept in drawing the main conclusion.

Is there evidence that the flute could have been long enough for additional holes? Sure, but evidence about the length of the flute doesn't count as evidence about the number of holes. Without additional information, it's just as likely that the flute was longer but did NOT have any additional holes, and there's no evidence -- strong or weak -- pointing us one way or the other.

(D) is tempting, but (B) is a better fit based on the way this argument is presented.­

I hope that helps! 

The fact that something is possible is not evidence that it is true. For example, if I said, “I was able to go to the beach yesterday,” that doesn't necessarily mean that I actually did go to the beach yesterday.

Likewise, the fact that the flute could have had three additional holes is not evidence that it does have three additional holes.

I hope that helps!

Please note that the first boldface is The entire flute must surely have had more holes. Focus on the words must surely, which indicate that the evidence we are looking for must provide striking confirmation of entire flute having additional holes.
Now, let's break down both statements and why they might not be considered direct evidence for the assertion about the entire flute having additional holes:


This statement suggests that the bone used for the flute was long enough to accommodate additional holes necessary to complete a diatonic scale. However, it doesn't directly confirm the existence of additional holes on the flute; it merely speculates that there was sufficient space on the bone for such holes.


This statement describes the discovery of a bone fragment with four holes arranged in a manner suitable for playing specific notes of a diatonic scale. However, it specifically mentions only four holes and doesn't provide concrete evidence or confirmation of the existence of additional holes to complete the scale.
Both statements indirectly suggest the possibility of the flute having additional holes based on the bone's length and the arrangement of the four holes. However, they don't provide explicit evidence or direct confirmation that the entire flute did, in fact, have more holes to complete the diatonic scale. Consequently, without direct evidence pertaining to the missing pieces of the flute, these statements might not sufficiently support the claim about the entire flute having additional holes necessary for a complete diatonic scale.

­Hi GMATNinja, should we be even worried about whether the evidence is strong / not? The intermediate conclusion has some premise supporting it and the intermediate conclusion supports the main conclusion. This is the structure of the argument right? Of course the premise used to support the intermediate conclusion may have flaws, but the role played by the boldface won't necessarily change based on how strong / weak is the evidence, right?. So why are we saying that what is presented is not a strong enough evidence?