There is a thriving industry designing table top map-and-unit pieces

Question

There is a thriving industry designing “table top” map-and-unit pieces games that simulate historical battles, such as the clashes of the Napoleonic Wars or the far-flung battles of World War II.  Authors of historical simulation games have to address far greater issues than mere historical accuracy.  Designing such a simulation must, by its very nature, entail grappling with profound philosophical questions of causality and history. How great should be the role of random chance when determining the outcomes of a simulated battle? How much weight should be accorded to quantitative advantage of numbers rather than qualitative advantages in organization and technique? How critical is the role of individual leadership in determining the outcome of these enormous conflicts? How should the game account for the inability of each side to know precisely the actions of the other?  What appears to be a simple way to while away the afternoon replaying Waterloo is actually to engage in an implicit meditation on destiny, chance, historical agency, knowledge, and free will. 
The relationship between the two bolded statements is best described as

A. The first is a conclusion about the status of an industry and the second is a supporting example drawn from an analogous situation. 
 B. The first is an assessment of the challenge facing individual firms and the second is a characterization of an industry.  
 C. The first is a descriptive statement of a situation and the second is an evaluation of the possible larger implications of that situation, using a specific example.  
 D. The first is an assertion of a difficulty confronting members of a profession and the second is an evaluation of the solution.
 E. The first is a characterization of a kind of production difficulty and the second is an explanation of the specific origins of that difficulty.

AdarshSambare · Answer

Let’s carefully analyze:

First boldface: “Authors of historical simulation games have to address far greater issues than mere historical accuracy.”
→ This is a **descriptive statement of the situation**: the challenge facing game authors is not just accuracy but deeper issues.

Second boldface: “What appears to be a simple way to while away the afternoon replaying Waterloo is actually to engage in an implicit meditation on destiny, chance, historical agency, knowledge, and free will.”
→ This is an **evaluation of the larger implications**: playing such a game is not simple entertainment, but something deeper.

So, the relationship is: the first states the situation, the second expands to show the larger implications.

Answer: C.

Akshat_verma_25 · Answer

Official Solution:

The first bolded statement describes the need for historical simulation authors to address issues beyond simple historical accuracy. The second statement makes a more sweeping claim that playing a Waterloo simulation carries with it profound implications about human nature, fate, etc. This corresponds with (C). Choice (E) might be tempting, but the second statement does not explain the origins but instead discusses the consequences.

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

BF1 -   Authors of historical simulation games have to address far greater issues than mere historical accuracy

--> This is what the authors of the game have to do. So, it's a situation/observation.

BF2 -   What appears to be a simple way to while away the afternoon replaying Waterloo is actually to engage in an implicit meditation on destiny, chance, historical agency, knowledge, and free will.

--> This is what the gamers have to do. It's the awareness required during gameplay and what goes into it.

Choices

A. The first is a conclusion about the status of an industry and the second is a supporting example drawn from an analogous situation.
 --> BF1 is not a conclusion about the status of the industry. It could have been a conclusion about the author's approach.  
 --> BF2 is not supporting example drawn from an analogous situation as it refers to the gamers.

B. The first is an assessment of the challenge facing individual firms and the second is a characterization of an industry.
 --> BF1 could be considered a statement describing a challenge but not an assessment of a challenge. 
 --> BF2 is not characterization of an industry but the way the gamers would have to respond to the game.

C. The first is a descriptive statement of a situation and the second is an evaluation of the possible larger implications of that situation, using a specific example.
 --> BF1 could be a description of a situation. 
 --> BF2 is correctly the consequence (implication) of the Game author's formation of games to which the gamers respond.

D. The first is an assertion of a difficulty confronting members of a profession and the second is an evaluation of the solution.
 --> BF1 could be an assertion of a difficulty confronting members of a profession.  
 --> BF2 is not evaluation of the solution

E. The first is a characterization of a kind of production difficulty and the second is an explanation of the specific origins of that difficulty.
 --> BF1 could be a characterization of a kind of production difficulty  
 --> BF2 is not second is an explanation of the specific origins of that difficulty. It is about a consequence not origins.

Hence Option C

There is a thriving industry designing table top map-and-unit pieces

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

There is a thriving industry designing table top map-and-unit pieces

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

My Rewards