Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to

This one is actually pretty easy. Its just a long passage.
A: first part ok, no the second is his or her position.
B: second is not true.
C: first is a context. second is the position. OK
D: first is not a position.
E: first is not an assumption.

Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen. In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.
The second is a position that is in support to the author's main conclusion. OUT!

B. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.
2nd position: that tax hike gives people incentive to alter reports & 1st position: that the report is complete... The first is not used to support the second position. It merely introduces the context on how the decline seems to stick out and later concluded that the reports are not accurate... CONTEXT is NOT EVIDENCE...

C. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.
This is the answer. The report as complete is totally accepted by the author and used to give context to his position. That its very completeness made it obvious that second position happened: altering of reports..

D. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.
The first is merely an introduction of context to introduce the author's argument... not the position itself..

E. The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.
It is the completeness of the report that made the author assumes or argues that the report is not accurate... The report is complete is accepted and not argued against...

Answer: C

Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen.

In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first presents a finding to support the position the historian seeks to establish; the second is a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.
B) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is a judgment advanced to support that position.
C) The first is a position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is evidence that has been used to argue against that position.
D) The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in support of a certain position; the second is that position.
E) The first is a claim that the historian rejects; the second is a conclusion drawn to justify that rejection.

NOTE: This Question has same Q stem, but has different 2nd BF line.

OE:



Hi, can anyone confirm; the conclusion of this stem -> (Therefore) the reported decline probably did not happen?

To analyze the argument, consider each of the statements one by one:

Boldface 1: Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. This is a FACT.

Boldface 2: (Therefore, it is reasonable to think that) the reported declines did not happen. This is the CONCLUSION.

Now as per the terms above, we know that “consideration” / “to acknowledge” are terms for fact. We also know that “position” is a term for the conclusion.

Check the options for this question now:

A. The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.
B. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.
C. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.
D. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.
E. The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.

Options A, B, E say that ‘second (boldface)’ acknowledges a consideration (fact) … WRONG as per the above analysis. The second is a ‘conclusion’.

Option D says that ‘first (boldface)’ is a position (conclusion) … WRONG as per the above analysis. The first is a ‘fact’.

Option C is correct.

There are various versions of these questions available across the forums, but this is the one that actually comes in GMAT prep question Pack 1 -

Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Village census records for the last half of the 1600's are remarkably complete. This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village's population from government census takers would have been easy. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen.

In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first presents a finding to support the position the historian seeks to establish ; the second is a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.

B) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish ; the second is the judgment advanced to support that position.

C) The first is a position that the historian seeks to establish ; the second is evidence that has been used to argue against that position.

D) The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in support of a certain position ; the second is that position.

E) The first is the claim that the historian rejects ; the second is a conclusion drawn to justify that rejection.

The Official answer to this question is B. I am still not convinced with the OA.

While researching for basic concepts I stumbled upon the magoosh blog, which says that-

Keep in mind the huge difference between evidence and a conclusion or position. Evidence is always fact, stone cold fact — “Unemployment numbers rose“, “This company bought that company“, “this medicine has such-and-such side effects.” Sometimes evidence is given as something one of the voices in the argument “says” or “points out.” Evidence is always about what actually happened in the objective world: in most arguments, the evidence itself is beyond dispute, and what the argument is about is how to interpret the evidence.

A conclusion is an interpretation, a deduction, based on the evidence. Someone else who accepts the evidence may or may not accept a given conclusion based on the evidence. Look for signal words, such as since, because, therefore, “we can conclude that“, etc.

A position is any opinion or point of view someone might hold — “I think Q is right” or “I think people who think Q is right are crazy!” or “People who dismiss the believers of Q are being unfair.” — those are positions. Anything that is an opinion or a judgment based on the evidence is a position: in particular, the conclusion of the argument is the position that the argument as a whole takes.

Based on the above can we say that Position is a kind of Intermediate Conclusion, not the final or main conclusion.

Please help me in his question and also in discovering one more term "Judgement" in context to GMAT reasoning.

Thank you so much Mike Mc Garry sir. I am sorry can you please point out the errors so that i do not repeat them in future. I didn't do them deliberately sir. I still have few doubts -

These words are quite often used in critical reasoning:
context and consideration - Can you Please explain sir how are they used in GMAT CR.

D) ... the second is that position. = seems reasonable, but doesn't work with first part.

Can you Please also elaborate "but doesn't work with first part" How?

I have few doubts in B also -

B. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is a judgment advanced to support that position.
Which position(For Option A also) is in discussion in the above example and to what section is the context pointing?

Dear crunchboss,
I'm happy to respond.

The two errors in your post are the two items I highlighted in red in my previous response. One was typing "the 16005" for "the 1600's." The former sounds like a US Zip Code, whereas the latter clearly refers to a time period, the seventeenth century. The second was that, in lieu of the prompt question, you repeated the final sentence at the end of the passage. The final sentence is, "Therefore, the reported declines probably did not happen." This appeared correctly at the end of the paragraph, but then is was repeated in the place of this prompt question, "In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles? " I had to find the question posted on another page to verify the nature of the prompt. It's never good if what you ask requires the person helping you to go to other pages to get the information that should have been in your post. Does this make sense, my friend?

Here is (D):
(D) The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in support of a certain position; the second is that position.
The problem with this is the word "assumption." The first is NOT an assumption. It's factual: it's evidence. The rest of (D) would be fine without this word:
The first is a ______ that the historian explicitly makes in support of a certain position; the second is that position.
That could be right, depending on what we put in that blank. The second half of this could be fine, but unfortunately, the word "assumption" make the entire choice incorrect.

To understand (B), here's a line-by-line analysis of the entire argument:
(1) Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village.
Factual background information. Very general.

(2) Village census records for the last half of the 16005 are remarkably complete.
The first bold statement. This is also background information, but more specific and more surprising than sentence (1). This sentence provides important context for sentences (3)-(5).

(3) This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines.
Important piece of evidence #1.

(4) Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax.
Important piece of evidence #2

(5) This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures.
This simply provides some more background information to provide context for sentence (4).

Everything up to this point in the argument has been evidence, purely factual, purely unambiguous. Now, the speaker's arguments will start.

(6a) Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded;
This contains the second BF statement. This is not pure fact. This is now the historian's judgment, the historian's interpretation of the motives of folks who lived 300+ years ago. This is position #1, which will support the main conclusion.

(6a) and concealing the size of a village's population from government census takers would have been easy.
Also, a judgment, not factual. This is position #2, which also will support the main conclusion.

(7) Therefore, the reported declines probably did not happen.
This is the BIG conclusion of the argument, supported by the positions in (6a) and (6b).

Now, (B) says:
The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is the judgment advanced to support that position.
In other words:
The first BF = (2) provide context for certain evidence (3) - (5), and this evidence supports the historian's position, his big main conclusion = (7).
The second BF = (6a) is not evidence---it's a sub-argument, a judgment, that also supports the historian's position, his big main conclusion = (7).

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hello mikemcgarry,

I hope you are doing good.

In the above argument, I don't understand one thing: how does 1 BF "support" the main conclusion.

The 1 BF is "Village census records for the last half of the 1600's are remarkably complete". But in order to avoid tax, villagers tend to provide smaller number than the actual number. Thus, we have the final conclusion:Therefore, the reported declines probably did not happen. --In short, the 1 BF is falsified by the main conclusion, for the numbers given by the villagers weren't accurate, proving that the census records weren't actually complete.

In my opinion, 1 BF is just a neutral statement, a fact set, that just provides additional information. I am unable to comprehend as to how does it support the main conclusion.

Clearly I am missing something integral here. Kindly throw some light on my above doubt.

Regards

Dear gmatexam439,

I'm happy to respond.

Consider the exact wording of the OA:
(B) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is the judgment advanced to support that position.

It's not that BF#1 simply provides direct blanket support for the conclusion, BF#2. Instead, BF#1 provides "context"--in this context, we understand other evidence, and it's this other evidence, not the context, that supports the conclusion.

Does this distinction make sense?
Mike

The correct answer is Option C.

Solving Boldface questions well is all about understanding the roles and relationships in the argument - which are facts (unquestionable), claims (can be questioned - including the main conclusion), and how each statement relates to the Main Conclusion and each other (supports, opposes, merely provides context, etc.). Let us do that for this question -

In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. FACT
Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. FACT
This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. FACT (an observation given)
Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. FACT
This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. FACT
Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy. CLAIM (Made by the author - this is not a fact but the author's hypothesis or theory)
Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen. CLAIM (Main Conclusion - this is supported by the hypothesis above)

So,

Boldface 2: is the Main Conclusion of the argument
Boldface 1: is a FACT that provides context for the argument (we cannot say it supports or opposes the Main Conclusion - it merely provides context)

With this understanding, lets look at option choices -

(A) The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.

BF1 is correct. BF2 is incorrect - it is the main conclusion/position the author seeks to establish, not a consideration against the position

(B) The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.

BF1 - Incorrect. it is not used to support the position, merely provides some context. BF2 - incorrect. It is actually the Main Conclusion

(C) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.

BF1 - Correct. BF2 - Correct (Position the historian seeks to establish = Main Conclusion.


(D) The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.

BF1 - Incorrect. First is factual information given for context. it is not a position for which the historian argues. BF2 - Incorrect. It is not an assumption, it is the Main Conclusion.


(E) The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.

BF1 - It is a given fact, not an assumption. BF2 - Incorrect. BF1 is a fact, does not get called into question


Hope this helps!
Regards

In this modified question, BF2 is different. Here is the basic analysis of the modified argument -

In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. FACT
Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. FACT
This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. FACT (an observation given)
Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. FACT
This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. FACT
Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy. CLAIM (Made by the author - this is not a fact but the author's hypothesis or theory)
Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen. CLAIM (Main Conclusion - this is supported by the hypothesis above)

So,

Boldface 2: is a CLAIM. it is the historian's hypothesis/theory to support the claim made in the next line (which is the Main Conclusion of the argument).
Boldface 1: is a FACT that provides context for the argument (we cannot say it supports or opposes the Main Conclusion - it merely provides context)

With this understanding, it is clear that the correct answer is option B.

B) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is a judgment advanced to support that position.

BF1 - Correct.
BF2 - Correct. BF2 is the claim/opinion/judgement used by the historian to support the main position/Main Conclusion.

Hope this helps!
Regards

Understanding the argument -
Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Fact
Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. Fact
This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. Fact
This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Fact
Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy. Opinion
Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen. Main conclusion

In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument (ok); the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish. (The second is not a fact but the main conclusion /position that the Historian wants to establish.)

(B) The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish (ok); the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position. (The second is not a fact but the main conclusion /position that the Historian wants to establish.)

(C) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish (ok); the second is that position. (ok)

(D) The first is a position for which the historian argues (The first is a fact and not a position. Moreover, the BF1 and BF2 go in the same direction and not opposite); the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument. (The second is not an assumption. It's a main conclusion)

(E) The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; (The first is a fact and not an assumption) the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question. (The second is not a Fact but the main conclusion. Moreover, BF2 doesn't not goes against BF1, both are in the same direction.)