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.
Jun 0803:00 PM PDT
-04:00 PM PDT
15 Full-length GMAT FE mocks with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Master the GMAT with expert live instruction, a personalized study plan, and real-time support. Includes 40 hours of online classes plus 6 months of access to the TTP GMAT OnDemand video course. Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1012:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Thought your job leaves no time for GMAT prep? After multiple GMAT attempts and a demanding consulting job, Kshitij improved to 695 in under 2 months. Learn the mindset shifts, study strategy, and execution changes that made the breakthrough possible.
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..- Jun 10
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Scoring 715 on the GMAT Focus Edition requires more than just learning formulas, memorizing concepts, or solving hundreds of questions. In this episode, Nishant shares how he improved his GMAT preparation by focusing on application of concepts, and more. 
Jun 1101:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
03 Jun 2026, 10:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
69% (02:24) correct
31%
(02:29)
wrong
based on 116
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Historian: Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from an island in Canada assessed for gold content. The assessments found high gold content, and Elizabeth I consequently funded two mining expeditions, which were both unsuccessful. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content than Frobisher’s reports indicated, and some scholars have therefore hypothesized that the methods used to assess the gold content of Frobisher’s samples were inaccurate. This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed.
In the historian’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first provides evidence in favor of the historian’s position; the second presents evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
B. The first provides evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the historian critiques; the second provides evidence against that hypothesis.
C. The first provides evidence that has been used to support one of two alternative courses of action; the second is a reason given for abandoning that course of action.
D. The first and the second are both pieces of evidence that the argument characterizes as discredited by the circumstances in which they were obtained.
E. The first and the second are two pieces of evidence that point to a discrepancy, the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses.
In the historian’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first provides evidence in favor of the historian’s position; the second presents evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
B. The first provides evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the historian critiques; the second provides evidence against that hypothesis.
C. The first provides evidence that has been used to support one of two alternative courses of action; the second is a reason given for abandoning that course of action.
D. The first and the second are both pieces of evidence that the argument characterizes as discredited by the circumstances in which they were obtained.
E. The first and the second are two pieces of evidence that point to a discrepancy, the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses.
Every tricky question should trigger a follow up quiz.
Build that habit with
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →.
03 Jun 2026, 22:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Historian: Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from an island in Canada assessed for gold content. The assessments found high gold content, and Elizabeth I consequently funded two mining expeditions, which were both unsuccessful. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content than Frobisher’s reports indicated, and some scholars have therefore hypothesized that the methods used to assess the gold content of Frobisher’s samples were inaccurate. This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed.
In the historian’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
The argument is about a discrepancy: Frobisher’s samples seemed to show high gold content, but modern analysis of the island’s soil shows much lower gold content. The issue is how to explain that discrepancy. Some scholars say the original assessment methods were inaccurate; the historian says that explanation is not secure unless sample tampering is ruled out. So both boldface portions are evidence creating the puzzle, and the argument discusses which explanation of that puzzle is justified.
A. The first provides evidence in favor of the historian’s position; the second presents evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
This is incorrect. The first does not support the historian’s position by itself. Together, the two boldface portions create the discrepancy being explained.
B. The first provides evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the historian critiques; the second provides evidence against that hypothesis.
This is incorrect. The first does not support the hypothesis that the assessment methods were inaccurate; the discrepancy between the first and second does.
C. The first provides evidence that has been used to support one of two alternative courses of action; the second is a reason given for abandoning that course of action.
This is incorrect. The passage is not about choosing or abandoning a course of action.
D. The first and the second are both pieces of evidence that the argument characterizes as discredited by the circumstances in which they were obtained.
This is incorrect. The argument does not discredit both pieces of evidence. It questions one proposed explanation of the difference between them.
E. The first and the second are two pieces of evidence that point to a discrepancy, the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses.
This is correct. The first says the original assessments showed high gold content, while the second says modern analysis shows much lower gold content. The argument then addresses how that discrepancy should be explained.
Answer: (E)
In the historian’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
The argument is about a discrepancy: Frobisher’s samples seemed to show high gold content, but modern analysis of the island’s soil shows much lower gold content. The issue is how to explain that discrepancy. Some scholars say the original assessment methods were inaccurate; the historian says that explanation is not secure unless sample tampering is ruled out. So both boldface portions are evidence creating the puzzle, and the argument discusses which explanation of that puzzle is justified.
A. The first provides evidence in favor of the historian’s position; the second presents evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
This is incorrect. The first does not support the historian’s position by itself. Together, the two boldface portions create the discrepancy being explained.
B. The first provides evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the historian critiques; the second provides evidence against that hypothesis.
This is incorrect. The first does not support the hypothesis that the assessment methods were inaccurate; the discrepancy between the first and second does.
C. The first provides evidence that has been used to support one of two alternative courses of action; the second is a reason given for abandoning that course of action.
This is incorrect. The passage is not about choosing or abandoning a course of action.
D. The first and the second are both pieces of evidence that the argument characterizes as discredited by the circumstances in which they were obtained.
This is incorrect. The argument does not discredit both pieces of evidence. It questions one proposed explanation of the difference between them.
E. The first and the second are two pieces of evidence that point to a discrepancy, the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses.
This is correct. The first says the original assessments showed high gold content, while the second says modern analysis shows much lower gold content. The argument then addresses how that discrepancy should be explained.
Answer: (E)
06 Jun 2026, 19:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Historian: Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from an island in Canada assessed for gold content. The assessments found high gold content, and Elizabeth I consequently funded two mining expeditions, which were both unsuccessful. Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content than Frobisher’s reports indicated, and some scholars have therefore hypothesized that the methods used to assess the gold content of Frobisher’s samples were inaccurate. This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed.
In the historian’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A key move we can make to get a Boldface question correct is to analyze the passage before going to the answer choices.
Analysis of the passage:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from an island in Canada assessed for gold content. - statement of fact
The assessments found high gold content - statement of fact
Elizabeth I consequently funded two mining expeditions, which were both unsuccessful. - statement of fact
Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content than Frobisher’s reports indicated - statement of fact
some scholars have therefore hypothesized that the methods used to assess the gold content of Frobisher’s samples were inaccurate. - presents a hypothesis about the facts stated by the previous clauses
This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed. - the author's opinion about the hypothesis presented by the previous sentence
In this case, the passage analysis doesn't clearly indicate much about how the correct answer will likely describe the boldfaced portions. Still, having analyzed the passage, we are at least fairly clear about its structure.
So, let's go to the answer choices and see how one of them correctly describes the roles of the two boldfaced portions.
A. The first provides evidence in favor of the historian’s position; the second presents evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
The first part of this choice is incorrect because the fact "The assessments found high gold content," does not logically support the conclusion "This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed."
Also, the second part of this choice is clearly incorrect since the argument does not include "an opposing position." The scholars' hypothesis is not in opposition to the historian's conclusion about what they hypothesized.
Moreover, it's not really accurate to say that the role of the second boldfaced portion is to support the scholars' hypothesis. The scholars' hypothesis is ABOUT the first and second boldfaced portions. It's an explanation of why the two boldfaced portions disagree. So, their role is not to support the hypothesis. It's more accurate to say that the are the subject of the hypothesis.
Eliminate.
B. The first provides evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the historian critiques; the second provides evidence against that hypothesis.
The scholars' hypothesis is ABOUT the two facts stated by the two boldfaced portions.
So, it's not really accurate to say that the first of the facts supports the hypothesis, and it's completely nonsensical to say that the second provides evidence against it. After all, a fact would not be logically be evidence against a hypothesis about that very fact.
Eliminate.
C. The first provides evidence that has been used to support one of two alternative courses of action; the second is a reason given for abandoning that course of action.
The passage neither supports nor gives a reason for abandoning any course of action.
Eliminate.
D. The first and the second are both pieces of evidence that the argument characterizes as discredited by the circumstances in which they were obtained.
This choice is incorrect because the argument does not "discredit" what's stated by either boldfaced portion.
After all, the conclusion is not about the boldfaced portions themselves. It's about a hypothesis about what is stated by the boldfaced portions,
Eliminate.
E. The first and the second are two pieces of evidence that point to a discrepancy, the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses.
This is perfect.
After all, "The assessments found high gold content" and "Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content" point to a discrepancy between what the assessments found and what has been found in modern times, and the argument "addresses" that discrepancy by first presenting the scholar's hypothesis about the discrepancy and then presenting the author's own opinion about the reasonableness of that hypothesis.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
In the historian’s argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A key move we can make to get a Boldface question correct is to analyze the passage before going to the answer choices.
Analysis of the passage:
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from an island in Canada assessed for gold content. - statement of fact
The assessments found high gold content - statement of fact
Elizabeth I consequently funded two mining expeditions, which were both unsuccessful. - statement of fact
Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content than Frobisher’s reports indicated - statement of fact
some scholars have therefore hypothesized that the methods used to assess the gold content of Frobisher’s samples were inaccurate. - presents a hypothesis about the facts stated by the previous clauses
This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed. - the author's opinion about the hypothesis presented by the previous sentence
In this case, the passage analysis doesn't clearly indicate much about how the correct answer will likely describe the boldfaced portions. Still, having analyzed the passage, we are at least fairly clear about its structure.
So, let's go to the answer choices and see how one of them correctly describes the roles of the two boldfaced portions.
A. The first provides evidence in favor of the historian’s position; the second presents evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
The first part of this choice is incorrect because the fact "The assessments found high gold content," does not logically support the conclusion "This conclusion would be reasonable only if one could be sure that neither Frobisher nor anyone else had added gold to the samples before they were assessed."
Also, the second part of this choice is clearly incorrect since the argument does not include "an opposing position." The scholars' hypothesis is not in opposition to the historian's conclusion about what they hypothesized.
Moreover, it's not really accurate to say that the role of the second boldfaced portion is to support the scholars' hypothesis. The scholars' hypothesis is ABOUT the first and second boldfaced portions. It's an explanation of why the two boldfaced portions disagree. So, their role is not to support the hypothesis. It's more accurate to say that the are the subject of the hypothesis.
Eliminate.
B. The first provides evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the historian critiques; the second provides evidence against that hypothesis.
The scholars' hypothesis is ABOUT the two facts stated by the two boldfaced portions.
So, it's not really accurate to say that the first of the facts supports the hypothesis, and it's completely nonsensical to say that the second provides evidence against it. After all, a fact would not be logically be evidence against a hypothesis about that very fact.
Eliminate.
C. The first provides evidence that has been used to support one of two alternative courses of action; the second is a reason given for abandoning that course of action.
The passage neither supports nor gives a reason for abandoning any course of action.
Eliminate.
D. The first and the second are both pieces of evidence that the argument characterizes as discredited by the circumstances in which they were obtained.
This choice is incorrect because the argument does not "discredit" what's stated by either boldfaced portion.
After all, the conclusion is not about the boldfaced portions themselves. It's about a hypothesis about what is stated by the boldfaced portions,
Eliminate.
E. The first and the second are two pieces of evidence that point to a discrepancy, the explanation of which is the issue that the argument addresses.
This is perfect.
After all, "The assessments found high gold content" and "Modern analysis of the island’s soil indicates much lower gold content" point to a discrepancy between what the assessments found and what has been found in modern times, and the argument "addresses" that discrepancy by first presenting the scholar's hypothesis about the discrepancy and then presenting the author's own opinion about the reasonableness of that hypothesis.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
