Last visit was: 26 Sep 2026, 16:35 It is currently 26 Sep 2026, 16:35
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
Psingh4249
User avatar
Joined: 27 May 2026
Last visit: 26 Sep 2026
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
3
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 8
Kudos: 3
 [1]
Biologist: In Region X, the average horn mass and body length of adult 14 Sep 2026, 00:53
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks a lot Marty! This was helpful.
MartyMurray

Not really. A conclusion is an opinion supported by facts.

It's true that a conclusion could turn out to be a true fact, but in an argument, something stated as fact is not the conclusion.

In this case specifically, the information about horn mass and body length is stated as fact, not as an opinion supported by other facts.



Explaining why something has occurred is not the same as confirming that it has in fact occurred.

In this specific case, the second sentence uses the wording "the cause is probably" to imply that the preceding information about bighorn sheep size is true, as in "the cause [of this observed phenomenon] is probably."

So, the point of the second sentence is to state an opinion about why something believed to have occurred has occurred. It's not to provide evidence confirming that the phenomenon has occurred.

Here's a parallel example:

The cookies are gone from the picnic table. It's likely that a squirrel took them.

The opinion that the cookies were taken by a squirrel doesn't provide evidence that the cookies are gone. Rather, it assumes that that they are gone is a fact and provides a possible way they became gone.
Show more
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,369
Own Kudos:
33,963
Given Kudos: 716
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,369
Kudos: 33,963
Biologist: In Region X, the average horn mass and body length of adult 14 Sep 2026, 11:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Psingh4249,

You're right that BF1 (the drop in horn mass and body length) is a plain fact, and your two questions actually point at the same subtlety, so let me take them together.

Can a fact ever be a conclusion?

The label doesn't come from whether a statement is "factual" - it comes from its role in the argument. A conclusion is a claim the author reasons toward, using other statements as support. BF1 has no support offered for it, and the author isn't trying to prove it - it's simply the observed situation the whole argument sets out to explain. So here it can't be the conclusion; it's the phenomenon.

Your second point - this is the key

You feel "The cause is probably regulations..." explains the size drop, and you're right that the argument does explain it. But watch the difference between two moves:

- A premise supports a conclusion (gives a reason to believe it).
- An explanation accounts for a phenomenon (says why it happened).

BF1 isn't being supported - nobody is trying to make you believe the sheep got smaller; you already accept it. BF1 is being explained. And the statement that actually delivers that explanation is the final line: genes for smaller size have spread through the population - that's the main conclusion, and it's why the sheep are smaller.

The regulations/survival-advantage step (BF2) is the reasoning that leads to that gene-spread conclusion - a subsidiary conclusion supporting it. So the chain runs:

regulations - smaller sheep survive to breed (BF2) - genes for small size spread (main conclusion) - which explains the observed size drop (BF1).

That's exactly choice C: BF1 = phenomenon the main conclusion explains; BF2 = subsidiary conclusion supporting that main conclusion.

A quick parallel

"My garden plants wilted this summer (fact). Therefore the soil probably lost its nutrients."

The wilting is the phenomenon - a fact, but not a conclusion. "Soil lost nutrients" is the conclusion that explains the wilting. Nothing supports the wilting; it's simply what we're explaining. Same shape as this argument.

Answer: C

Psingh4249
MartyMurray

Hi Marty,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Have few queries in my mind, it would be really helpful if you could pls help me with it.

1) I do understand 1BF is a fact, but can a fact ever be a conclusion in an arguement?
2) After reading the argument, it feels like 'The cause is probably regulations prohibiting hunting of smaller animals.' justifies/supports the fact/BF1. It does explain why we are seeing such a phenomena.

Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts