Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 23:42 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 23:42
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Praetorian
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Last visit: 27 Dec 2017
Posts: 2,868
Own Kudos:
1,705
 [24]
Given Kudos: 781
Posts: 2,868
Kudos: 1,705
 [24]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
20
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,408
Own Kudos:
778,411
 [4]
Given Kudos: 99,987
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,408
Kudos: 778,411
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Darth_McDaddy
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Last visit: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 181
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Location: USA
Posts: 181
Kudos: 893
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
FN
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Last visit: 07 May 2012
Posts: 1,576
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Location: New York City
Concentration: Social Enterprise
Schools:Wharton'11 HBS'12
Posts: 1,576
Kudos: 675
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
It should be C....

I dont see how others can be correct?

the first is evidence that is used in an argument the author disagrees with...second statement is supportin the authors argument...

Please Post OA...soon...

thanks
User avatar
Praetorian
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Last visit: 27 Dec 2017
Posts: 2,868
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 781
Posts: 2,868
Kudos: 1,705
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C is the best answer.

A and B are wrong because the author does not challenge the fact that “certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected speciesâ€
User avatar
gmat2me2
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Last visit: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 356
Own Kudos:
Posts: 356
Kudos: 21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?
avatar
ChallengeMaker
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Last visit: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Posts: 14
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmat2me2
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?


B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes
User avatar
rthothad
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Last visit: 14 Feb 2009
Posts: 315
Own Kudos:
Posts: 315
Kudos: 111
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ChallengeMaker
gmat2me2
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?

B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes


I would rather agree with B on the first BF rather than C which says that the author disputes the first BF, the author is definitely not disputing the first BF, so on this basis alone C should be eliminated.
Moreover, you yourself agree that the author AGREES with the first BF, don't you think 'C' is wrong.
avatar
ChallengeMaker
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Last visit: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Posts: 14
Kudos: 1
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rthothad
ChallengeMaker
gmat2me2
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?

B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes

I would rather agree with B on the first BF rather than C which says that the author disputes the first BF, the author is definitely not disputing the first BF, so on this basis alone C should be eliminated.
Moreover, you yourself agree that the author AGREES with the first BF, don't you think 'C' is wrong.


You are not careful. C does not say that the author disputes the first BF it says that first BF is an EVIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENT the author disputes. The evidence is first BF, the argument is how professor interpretes his findings. In his argument, professor uses first BF as EVIDENCE just as C says
User avatar
rthothad
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Last visit: 14 Feb 2009
Posts: 315
Own Kudos:
Posts: 315
Kudos: 111
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ChallengeMaker

You are not careful. C does not say that the author disputes the first BF it says that first BF is an EVIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENT the author disputes. The evidence is first BF, the argument is how professor interpretes his findings. In his argument, professor uses first BF as EVIDENCE just as C says


May be I am missing something rather fundamental, but I interpret the first part of C "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes " to mean that the first BF is an evidence in the argument which the author disputes.
User avatar
HowManyToGo
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Last visit: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 193
Own Kudos:
Location: India
Posts: 193
Kudos: 41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ChallengeMaker

B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques


Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.
User avatar
forumsmba
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Last visit: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
Posts: 39
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rthothad:
As you mentioned, the first part of C is : "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes "

The argument that the author disputes is ---> chlorocetin is harmful (as suggested by Prof. Jones)
The evidence for this is ---> slower photosynthesis in the effected areas. (bolded part)

As ChallengeMaker mentioned, B is wrong because the author does not disagree with the first bold face. He only disagrees that cholorcetin is the reason for slower photosynthesis.
avatar
ChallengeMaker
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Last visit: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Posts: 14
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HowManyToGo
ChallengeMaker

B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques

Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.



B is wrong because first BF contains no argument with which the author would take issue. The author says nothing about whether he disagrees with the fact that "certain bio processes are slow" but he clearly disputes the professor's argument which is built on evidence in BF1

Note that C says that the author disputes the professor's argument (not the conclusion). This wording describes the situation pretty accurately because the author indeed disputes the arguemnt i.e. how it is constructed. He does not like the logic behind the argument so we can say that he disputes the argument.

Finally, the author's main point in this passage is to prove that the professor's claim is unwarranted. This is the author's position; it can be put into such words: "it is premature to conclude that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world". Pretty nice and clear position, don't you agree?
User avatar
rthothad
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Last visit: 14 Feb 2009
Posts: 315
Own Kudos:
Posts: 315
Kudos: 111
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
forumsmba
rthothad:
As you mentioned, the first part of C is : "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes "

The argument that the author disputes is ---> chlorocetin is harmful (as suggested by Prof. Jones)
The evidence for this is ---> slower photosynthesis in the effected areas. (bolded part)

As ChallengeMaker mentioned, B is wrong because the author does not disagree with the first bold face. He only disagrees that cholorcetin is the reason for slower photosynthesis.


When one reads the first part of C, the way 'the argument' is worded makes one refer to the entire passage not to 'chlorocetin is harmful' and can you tell me what made you think that 'the argument' is indeed 'chlorocetin is harmful'. Infact, the argument is the last few words after the second BF - "correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors"
User avatar
HowManyToGo
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Last visit: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 193
Own Kudos:
Location: India
Posts: 193
Kudos: 41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ChallengeMaker
HowManyToGo
ChallengeMaker

B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques

Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.


B is wrong because first BF contains no argument with which the author would take issue. The author says nothing about whether he disagrees with the fact that "certain bio processes are slow" but he clearly disputes the professor's argument which is built on evidence in BF1

Note that C says that the author disputes the professor's argument (not the conclusion). This wording describes the situation pretty accurately because the author indeed disputes the arguemnt i.e. how it is constructed. He does not like the logic behind the argument so we can say that he disputes the argument.

Finally, the author's main point in this passage is to prove that the professor's claim is unwarranted. This is the author's position; it can be put into such words: "it is premature to conclude that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world". Pretty nice and clear position, don't you agree?



"correlation that ***might*** not reflect any causal relationship between the factors"

The author does not prove anything here, he just bring in an argument which undermines the claim of the biologist(he does NOT REFUTE the claim) . It might be proven later that the plants slow processes were in fact due to the chemical , which was just a possibility when the biologist's claim was out.

What the author says is that the correlation **might not ** reflect causal relatioship.The way I read it "It is just a possiblity that the data might not point to a causal relationship"- He is not refuting anything here, just probably asking for some loose ends to be tied up.

Yes ! you are right when you say that BF1 has no argument which the author critiques.

Though POE might suggest C ( C still has to be valid)

HMTG.
User avatar
forumsmba
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Last visit: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
Posts: 39
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rthothad:

I didn't think of the entire passage as an 'argument'. I read it as:

The argument that the author disputes: chlorocetin is harmful (as believed by Prof. Jones)
The author's position (argument): No proof that chlorocetin is harmful

I read first part of C as: 'the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes

-fm
User avatar
AJB77
Joined: 30 May 2005
Last visit: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 236
Own Kudos:
Posts: 236
Kudos: 51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C it is for me quite clearly.

Jones presents the first BF as evidence of an argument that the author disputes.

Second BF supports the author's position that Jones' argument is not provable.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,832
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,832
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts