Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by

Question

Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by postulating as yet undiscovered conspiracies is generally rejected by historians because it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years. Yet to argue in this way is a mistake. A conspiracy need not be gargantuan and intricate to explain why a country, for instance, decided to act in a certain way: it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret.

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

A. The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is a premise offered in support of the columnist’s conclusion.

B. The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is the columnist’s conclusion.

C. The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a conclusion the columnist believes that premise does support.

D. The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly used to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise given to support the columnist’s contention.

E. The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise the columnist contends better supports that conclusion.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-ydiaedok.png [ 119.99 KiB | Viewed 4928 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/Login.

Using official mocks already? Add GMAT Club Tests for harder practice, analytics, and explanations without overlapping Official Guide or official mock questions.
Try it now →

_________________

New to the GMAT Club?

Question Bank

Bunuel's Signature Collection

Reading Comprehension

Ultimate Quant Guide

All You Need for Quant

Quantitative

Verbal

Signature Read More

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by postulating as yet undiscovered conspiracies is generally rejected by historians because  it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years . Yet to argue in this way is a mistake. A conspiracy need not be gargantuan and intricate to explain why a country, for instance, decided to act in a certain way:  it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret .

Analysis of the passage

The passage opens by presenting an idea:

The idea that many historical events can be explained by postulating as yet undiscovered conspiracies

It then presents what is basically a conclusion about that idea, that it makes sense to reject it:

is generally rejected by historians

Next comes historians' support for rejecting the idea:

it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years

At this point, the passage states the columnist's main conclusion:

to argue in this way is a mistake

"This way" in the main conclusion refers to the way historians support their conclusion that it makes sense to reject the idea.

The last part of the passage provides support for the main conclusion:

A conspiracy need not be gargantuan and intricate to explain why a country, for instance, decided to act in a certain way:  it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret .

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

The correct  answer will accurately describe the roles of the two boldfaced portions.

A. The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is a premise offered in support of the columnist’s conclusion.

The second part of this choice is correct because the second boldfaced portion does support the columnist's main conclusion.

However, this choice is incorrect because the first boldfaced portion is not a conclusion. Rather it's support for historians' conclusion that it makes sense to reject the idea.

Eliminate.

B. The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is the columnist’s conclusion.

This choice is completely incorrect because neither boldfaced portion states a conclusion. Rather, each provides support for a conclusion: the first provides support for historians' rejection of the idea, and the second supports the main conclusion.

Eliminate.

C. The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a conclusion the columnist believes that premise does support.

The first part of this choice is correct since the first boldfaced portion is what the historians' use to support their conclusion that it makes sense to reject the idea and since the columnist says that their doing so is "a mistake."

However, the second boldfaced portion is not a conclusion. It's a premise that supports the columnist's main conclusion.

Eliminate.

D. The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly used to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise given to support the columnist’s contention.

The first part of this choice is correct since the first boldfaced portion is what the historians' use to support their conclusion that it makes sense to reject the idea and since the columnist says that their doing so is "a mistake."

The second part of this choice is also correct because the second boldfaced portion is a premise given to support the columnist's main conclusion, or "contention."

Keep.

E. The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise the columnist contends better supports that conclusion.

The first part of this choice is correct since the first boldfaced portion is what the historians' use to support their conclusion that it makes sense to reject the idea and since the columnist says that their doing so is "a mistake."

However, the second part of this choice is incorrect because the second boldfaced portion doesn't support historians' conclusion but rather supports the columnist's conclusion that historians are mistaken.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  D

Fish181 · Answer

Boldface is always tricky! I got this one correct because I properly identified the two different portions of the boldface. And eliminated all answer choices that didn't match what I identified.

Boldface 1: " because  it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years."

The word "because" should flag whatever proceeds as the premise or evidence for a given conclusion. Therefore, any answer choice that states that boldface 1 is a conclusion, cross it out.

Boldface 2: "it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret."

This is a little more tricky but you should identify that this boldface is evidence/ a premise to support an alternative conclusion said by the columnist. That "A conspiracy need not be gargantuan and intricate to explain why a country, for instance, decided to act in a certain way." If you have a hard time seeing that, add the word "because" where the semi colon is and then it's the same thing as boldface 1.

Cross out anything that mentions boldface two as a conclusion.

This leaves you with D or E.

E says: "The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion;  the second is a premise the columnist contends better supports that conclusion ."

The bolded text is why this answer is incorrect. The columnist is not supporting the original conclusion that conspiracy theories are too complex to work. The columnist is supporting a different conclusion that they actually are possible.

Therefore, with all else eliminated, answer choice D.

egmat · Answer

This boldface question tests our ability to identify argument structure and how different parts function within the columnist's reasoning. Let me break this down systematically.

Solution Approach:

Step 1: Map the Argument Structure 
First, let's identify what's happening in the passage:

Historians reject conspiracy theories as explanations for historical events
Their reasoning (Boldface 1): Large, complex conspiracies can't stay secret for years

Columnist's response: "Yet to argue in this way is a mistake"
Columnist's counter (Boldface 2): Conspiracies can be simple - just two decision-makers with a secret motive

Step 2: Identify the Columnist's Position 
The columnist  disagrees  with historians. The key phrase "Yet to argue in this way is a mistake" signals the columnist is challenging the historians' reasoning. The columnist's main conclusion is that historians are wrong to reject conspiracy theories based on their assumption about conspiracy complexity.

Step 3: Analyze Boldface Functions 
 Boldface 1:   "it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years"

This is the  reasoning  historians use to support their rejection of conspiracy theories 
 It's a premise in the historians' argument, NOT their conclusion 
 The columnist opposes this reasoning

Boldface 2:   "it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret"

This supports the columnist's counter-argument 
 It's evidence for why the historians' approach is flawed 
 Shows how conspiracies could actually work effectively

Step 4: Evaluate Answer Choices

Let's quickly eliminate wrong answers:

A & B:  Both incorrectly identify the first boldface as a "conclusion" - it's actually the reasoning/premise historians use
 C:  Says the columnist believes the first premise supports something - but the columnist actually disagrees with using this premise
 E:  Claims the second boldface better supports the historians' conclusion - but it actually opposes their view entirely
 D:  ✓ Correct!

First part: "premise the columnist contends is mistakenly used" - Yes, historians use this premise incorrectly
Second part: "premise given to support the columnist's contention" - Yes, it supports the columnist's argument that historians are wrong

Answer: D

Want to master the complete framework for solving ALL boldface questions systematically? Check out the  detailed solution on Neuron by e-GMAT , which includes visualization techniques, alternative approaches, and the universal pattern that applies to similar GMAT problems. You can also explore comprehensive solutions for Official questions  here .

The full Neuron solution reveals advanced strategies for quickly identifying argument structure and avoiding the common premise-conclusion confusion trap that catches most test-takers on boldface questions.

lily123400 · Answer

Main idea: 
Many historians think that historical events are not explained by conspiracies because it's hard to keep complex arrangements a secret by the sheer number of conspirators required. However, they are mistaken because the conspiracy may not need to be large or complex to be executed which thus is easier to keep secret. 
So the first boldface provides the reasoning used by people who oppose the main argument. The second boldface explains why the main claim is correct.
The difference between D and E's first parts is that D says sentence 1 is an incorrect reasoning used to support the disagree-ers and E says sentence 1 is merely a hypothesis the columnist thinks is used to support the disagree-ers. (The usage of because suggests certainty and more alignment with used in D)

And the second part of D is correct because sentence 2 is not a conclusion but evidence to support the columnist's argument

Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by