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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
ravigupta2912
02 Mar 2021, 07:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understood. Re read it. The opening modifier in A is affirming the biographers claim. Understood it.
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
02 Mar 2021, 19:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
AndrewN
Hi ravigupta2912 hello AndrewN sir
Sir has already briefed well the key point.
Just to clarify on 2nd point raised by ravigupta2912 : My point was that what historians now believe and what bio claim doesn't provide us useful information to judge and leaves us with too many open ends.
If you think strengthen side: Oh Bio knows that it is because of poor economic conditions , still they think T blamed N for such a condition, so it means it maybe because of N?
Or weaken side: Ah! so it was not because of N but because of other reasons , hence weaken.
This option adds some unnecessary information that is not of much value . There can be unlimited ambiguous claims but judging them are left to reader as in the example highlighted: (I think you will agree that invoking could-be-true scenarios about the military under Napoleon trampling fields is a much less direct and more challenging approach to justify.)
So a hint: why such an option would be correct answer that is not directly influencing our conclusion.
So after thinking this, I was not convinced with A and moved on to next options.
C also has some open ends. But at least we get a direction that T had reasons to avoid poverty inspite of N do what .
What i mean is: C can be argued, oh! He could hate N because even after his father death N didn't do anything, but on other side, if his father had steady income, then in spite of he hated or liked N, his conditions would have been better. So at least some bridge is covered in C at one side as compared to A in which both ends are open . So I kept hold on C.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks!
03 Mar 2021, 10:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
In given statement Tocqueville has mentioned he suffered in childhood because of Napoleon, but option C gives another reason for his childhood sufferings and if his family would have not gone through certain personal problem he would have had a comfortable life, which means even if Napoleon was there it was possible for them to live a good life.
So option C is correct
So option C is correct
