Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
13 Sep 2011, 03:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 1
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Hey guys,
I am a bit terrified with bold face CR as whichever bold face CRs i have attempted, i have managed to screw most of all.
I would be really grateful if someone could share some suggestions to increase my comfort level with bold face CR. any documents, tips would be welcomed.
Thanks..
I am a bit terrified with bold face CR as whichever bold face CRs i have attempted, i have managed to screw most of all.
I would be really grateful if someone could share some suggestions to increase my comfort level with bold face CR. any documents, tips would be welcomed.
Thanks..
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
13 Sep 2011, 14:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
I've found that the MGMAT method of diagramming the argument is extremely helpful for these types of questions. After this, hone in on the main conclusion of the argument and then address the bold face phrases. Identify whether the bold face phrases are premises (for or against main conclusion of stimulus), or a conclusion of an argument (again, for or against the point of view of stimulus). Then, quickly pre-phrase what you think the bold face phrases do for the argument. Read every answer choice slowly and carefully. If its explanation of the first bolded statement does not fit with yours, move onto the next.
Thats my approach, however I am bordering 2 minutes with this technique for more difficult CR bold face questions.
Thats my approach, however I am bordering 2 minutes with this technique for more difficult CR bold face questions.
14 Sep 2011, 11:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Structure questions can certainly be intimidating, because they require you to reason at a more abstract level, and because the wording in the answer choices can get a little fancy. On the other hand, you don’t always have to pay as much attention to the details of the argument. You can usually determine what the boldfaced statements are doing without worrying so much about assumptions or flaws in the argument, and perhaps without even thoroughly comprehending the argument! Let’s try an example (I have intentionally made it a bit obscure):
Some music critics are dismissive of Louis Armstrong’s work, regarding it as so much antebellum sentimentality, dressed in an ossified, almost ritualistic, style. But in evaluating Armstrong’s oeuvre on the basis of his later work, and in comparison to the more avant-garde artists they favor, these critics are making a mistake. Armstrong’s early innovations paved the way for what was to follow, and he forged much of the syntax used by critics’ darlings such as Parker and Coltrane. True, he did not embrace modal playing, and his knowledge of harmonics may have been limited, but he nevertheless managed to anticipate in his playing many of the stylistic “inventions” of later artists, creating strikingly original solos featuring the chromaticism and on-the-fly interpolation that later audiences would take for granted.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A) The first is an objection against the position taken by the argument; the second provides support for that objection.
B) The first is an objection against the position taken by the argument; the second is a consideration that invalidates that objection.
C) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second provides support for that position.
D) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second is a concession to the position that the argument rejects.
E) The first provides supporting evidence for the position taken by the argument; the second introduces a reason to reject that evidence in forming a conclusion.
That’s a lot of information to process, right? Well, let’s try to focus on what the boldfaced statements are doing. To begin with, we need to know what the conclusion of the argument is. The argument begins by describing how some critics are dismissive of Armstrong, and then says that those critics are making a mistake. The author then says that Armstrong was innovative, lists a few things that Armstrong did not do, and goes on to say more positive things about Armstrong. So what’s the conclusion? The first bold statement—the critics are making a mistake. The rest of the material that follows supports the conclusion, with the exception of the second bold statement. It mentions a few things that Armstrong did not do. So this is a counter-premise—it does not support the argument.
So there we have it: the first statement is the conclusion, and the second is a counter-premise. We don’t need to concern ourselves with what chromaticism is, how Amstrong’s music relates to Coltrane’s, or what it means to have an ossified style.
Using the first boldfaced statement, we can reject A, B, and E. The first statement is the conclusion, not an objection to the conclusion. It is also not supporting evidence for the conclusion. In fact, it’s not evidence of any kind; it’s an opinion. Note that we can cross these answers off without even reading their second clauses. If the first part is wrong, the answer is wrong.
We have only C and D to consider now. We might spend some time trying to evaluate the meaning of “a concession to the position that the argument rejects,” or we might simply recognize that the second statement is not providing support for the position, as stated in C. Therefore the answer is D—the author is conceding that there are some ways in which Armstrong was not innovating, but he or she still rejects the position that Armstrong’s music should be dismissed.
I hope this helps you to handle structure problems without too much stress. Focus on the important points—the conclusion, and how the bold statements relate to the conclusion—and only get into the finer details if absolutely necessary.
Some music critics are dismissive of Louis Armstrong’s work, regarding it as so much antebellum sentimentality, dressed in an ossified, almost ritualistic, style. But in evaluating Armstrong’s oeuvre on the basis of his later work, and in comparison to the more avant-garde artists they favor, these critics are making a mistake. Armstrong’s early innovations paved the way for what was to follow, and he forged much of the syntax used by critics’ darlings such as Parker and Coltrane. True, he did not embrace modal playing, and his knowledge of harmonics may have been limited, but he nevertheless managed to anticipate in his playing many of the stylistic “inventions” of later artists, creating strikingly original solos featuring the chromaticism and on-the-fly interpolation that later audiences would take for granted.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A) The first is an objection against the position taken by the argument; the second provides support for that objection.
B) The first is an objection against the position taken by the argument; the second is a consideration that invalidates that objection.
C) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second provides support for that position.
D) The first is the position taken by the argument; the second is a concession to the position that the argument rejects.
E) The first provides supporting evidence for the position taken by the argument; the second introduces a reason to reject that evidence in forming a conclusion.
That’s a lot of information to process, right? Well, let’s try to focus on what the boldfaced statements are doing. To begin with, we need to know what the conclusion of the argument is. The argument begins by describing how some critics are dismissive of Armstrong, and then says that those critics are making a mistake. The author then says that Armstrong was innovative, lists a few things that Armstrong did not do, and goes on to say more positive things about Armstrong. So what’s the conclusion? The first bold statement—the critics are making a mistake. The rest of the material that follows supports the conclusion, with the exception of the second bold statement. It mentions a few things that Armstrong did not do. So this is a counter-premise—it does not support the argument.
So there we have it: the first statement is the conclusion, and the second is a counter-premise. We don’t need to concern ourselves with what chromaticism is, how Amstrong’s music relates to Coltrane’s, or what it means to have an ossified style.
Using the first boldfaced statement, we can reject A, B, and E. The first statement is the conclusion, not an objection to the conclusion. It is also not supporting evidence for the conclusion. In fact, it’s not evidence of any kind; it’s an opinion. Note that we can cross these answers off without even reading their second clauses. If the first part is wrong, the answer is wrong.
We have only C and D to consider now. We might spend some time trying to evaluate the meaning of “a concession to the position that the argument rejects,” or we might simply recognize that the second statement is not providing support for the position, as stated in C. Therefore the answer is D—the author is conceding that there are some ways in which Armstrong was not innovating, but he or she still rejects the position that Armstrong’s music should be dismissed.
I hope this helps you to handle structure problems without too much stress. Focus on the important points—the conclusion, and how the bold statements relate to the conclusion—and only get into the finer details if absolutely necessary.
