The meltdown in the Arctic is speeding up and as a result

IMO E

A and D are out as there is nothing stated that the first bolded part argues against to.

C is out as the second bolded part is not an assumption.

Between B and E, B the difference is whether the second bold part is an explanation or an evidence.

In my opinion is an explanation, thus E is the correct answer

The meltdown in the Arctic is speeding up and as a result the North Pole could be ice-free within 5 years instead of 60 years time as earlier predicted. This is based on computer studies of satellite images that reveal that ice at North Pole melted at an unprecedented rate recently-the disappearance is said to have exceeded the record loss of more than a million square kilometers in 2007 as global warming tightened its grip. The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice free in five years.

In the above argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is an apprehension against some belief; the second is the conclusion based on that apprehension.
B. The first is a prediction based on some evidence; the second is that evidence.
C. The first is the conclusion; the second is the assumption on which the conclusion is based.
D. The first is an apprehension against some belief; the second is an explanation in support of that apprehension.
E. The first is a prediction; the second is the explanation on which the prediction is based.

IMO D. Clearly the first statement is a claim AGAINST an existing/earlier prediction.

I am split between B & E as answer choices, but i would go with E as the answer....because i think the 2nd bold face is not its not evidence rather it is an explanation only....

guys, comments on this plz

Where is this question from? The second boldface portion could be a Sentence Correction exercise, and the phrase "an apprehension against" is not English. You can have apprehensions "about" things, but not "against" things. Such imprecise language is especially problematic in boldface questions, where you very often need to understand the exact meanings of the phrases in each answer choice in order to identify the correct answer. I'd normally recommend just ignoring boldface questions that are not expertly written; they are likely to be more confusing than helpful.

Googling the opening phrase of the question only reveals that parts of it are copied verbatim from a four-year old Observer article.

I'm between D and E. What are we agreeing on finally?

Cheers!
J

I would also go with E, since D states that the first is an apprehension against some belief; the second is an explanation in support of that apprehension. In my opinion, we are not going against some belief here.

Anyway, good question.

Very good question indeed, I thought it may be that we are going against the believe that it will take 60 years instead of 5 years for it to happen, is this a valid argument?

IMO E. It's not a belief because of the end modifier "as earlier predicted." And plus, unless this is an OG question, I'm not taking to memory that belief = prediction.
The meltdown in the Arctic is speeding up and as a result the North Pole could be ice-free within 5 years instead of 60 years time as earlier predicted.

I think it's E too, we are not going against any belief here, strictly speaking.

Can any expert please chip in and provide valuable insight?
Thanks
Cheers
J

Can we please get the freaking OA/OE for this one!!
Cheers!
J

The meltdown in the Arctic is speeding up and as a result the North Pole could be ice-free within 5 years instead of 60 years time as earlier predicted. This is based on computer studies of satellite images that reveal that ice at North Pole melted at an unprecedented rate recently-the disappearance is said to have exceeded the record loss of more than a million square kilometers in 2007 as global warming tightened its grip. The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice free in five years.

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.