Last visit was: 04 May 2026, 19:04 It is currently 04 May 2026, 19:04
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   3   
655-705 (Hard)|   Bold Face CR|         
User avatar
gchandana
User avatar
Joined: 16 May 2024
Last visit: 03 May 2026
Posts: 196
Own Kudos:
143
 [1]
Given Kudos: 170
Location: India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 196
Kudos: 143
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 01:49
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. The second doesn't say the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The second is not an unrelated consideration; it is related.
C. The second does not qualify the evidence given in the first. It is infact contrasting to it.
D. Yes, based on similar cases that happened, it provides an object. And the second gives a factor (founder's proven execution history and pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform) that outweighs the objection in determining the approval of funding, the course of action.
E. The second is not a conclusion, and also, what is provided is not a compelling assumption; those are facts.

Option D.
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
User avatar
harishg
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 09 Apr 2026
Posts: 176
Own Kudos:
174
 [1]
Given Kudos: 31
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81
Posts: 176
Kudos: 174
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 02:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The first BF is a premise which talks about a consideration in favour of rejecting a proposal. The second BF is also a premise that talks about the course of action that was followed despite the concern raised in the first BF.

A - The first BF is indeed a challenge to the plausibility of the forecast. However, the second BF does not want the forecast to be abandoned. The second BF talks about a result that happened despite the challenge presented in the first BF.

B - The first BF does not talk about a structural weakness. It talks about certain challenges in the industry. The second BF is not an unrelated consideration and is related to the first BF.

C - The first BF is indeed evidence against feasibility of the projection. However, the second BF does not introduce a broader market dynamic, but rather talks about company specific attributes

D - This is the answer. The first BF introduces an objection and second BF talks about why despite the concern in first BF, funding happened.

E - The first BF talks about challenges in the industry. Second BF does not contradict the rejection, but is accepting and further provides reasons as to why funding was still given.

Therefore, Option D imo.
User avatar
Gmat860sanskar
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2023
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 232
Own Kudos:
117
 [1]
Given Kudos: 81
Schools: ISB '26
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: ISB '26
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80
Posts: 232
Kudos: 117
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 03:01
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
Stimulus :

First Boldface : Introduce an objection based on historic data

Second Boldface : Provides a contrasting consideration which outweighs the decision

Now let's see options :

A : No, the second boldface is opposite of what happens --- Incorrect

B : Second boldface is not unrelated --- Incorrect

C : No, second overrides the evidence --- Incorrect

D : Exactly matches our pre-thinking --- Correct

E : Second is not logical conclusion, it's an explanation --- Incorrect

Ans - D
User avatar
adityamntr
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2023
Last visit: 21 Feb 2026
Posts: 111
Own Kudos:
81
 [1]
Given Kudos: 13
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27
Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27
Posts: 111
Kudos: 81
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 03:05
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
s1- it gives skepticism of a plan based on the histrocil data
s2- still overweighs the decision opposite of what s1 was heading to, by a counteracting factor


A) s2 is wrong
B) s2 is wrong, since it is nto unrelated consideration
C)s2 is wrong, doesn nto qualigy s1
D)absolutely correct, perfectly shwos the function of both statements
E)s2 is wrong
User avatar
arnab24
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2024
Last visit: 25 Feb 2026
Posts: 96
Own Kudos:
81
 [1]
Given Kudos: 7
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26
GPA: 8.80
Schools: ISB '26
Posts: 96
Kudos: 81
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 03:20
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Boldface 1 : Skepticism about these projects arose , given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. This part raises a doubt/objection based on historical evidences.

Boldface 2 : Nonetheless , funding was approved based on the founder's proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform. This part provides contrasting factors that favour the plan proposed. In the end contrasting factor outweigh the historical evidences leading to funding.

Let's check which option matches this role:

(A) It's incorrect since the first is not challenging the strategic forecast. It doubts it. Further second is not accepting the challenge.
(B) The first is not identifying structural weakness in the plan. It's incorrect.
(C) The first is not offering the evidence against feasibility of projection. It says the growth was slow in historical evidences. Also second is not qualifying the evidence.
(D) It's correct and matching our roles.
(E) The second is not a conclusion as it is not receiving any support. It's incorrect.

So answer is D :)
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
User avatar
truedelulu
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2025
Last visit: 24 Jan 2026
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
70
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 81
Kudos: 70
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 03:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Summary: Many startups project very high user growth rate, but these forecast often lead to eventual failure. One firm recently projected high users growth rate despite small engineering team and limited marketing. Skepticism about these projections argue that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. However, funding was approved based on execution history and pre-launch distribution partnership.

A. Incorrect. The second doesn't conclude the forecast should be abandoned.
B. Incorrect. The second is related to the plan.
C. Incorrect. The second does not qualify the evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. CORRECT. The first offer historical evidence to oppose the projection, and the second provides a contrasting factor that outwreight the objection.
E. Incorrect. The second is not a conclusion.
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
User avatar
Kinshook
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 5,993
Own Kudos:
5,867
 [1]
Given Kudos: 163
Location: India
Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 5,993
Kudos: 5,867
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 03:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure.
One firm recently project a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend.
First boldface: Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly.
Second boldface: Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder's proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

Objective: Role of boldfaces

Pre-thinking:
The first boldface provides historical precedent for providing anticipation for future anticipated outcome.
There is contradiction is course of action and a new facts are presented to justify the action.

Options:

A. The second does not accept the challenge and does not abandon the forecast. Incorrect

B. The second is NOT unrelated consideration but a relevant one impacting the course of action. Incorrect

C. The second does not qualify the evidence by providing broader market dynamic but provides a very specific case about founder's credentials and pre-launch distribution partnership. Incorrect

D. Matches our pre-thinking. The first raises an objection based on historic precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighs the objection in determining a course of action. Correct

E. The second is NOT a compelling assumption but is a fact deciding the course of action. Incorrect

IMO D
User avatar
raffaeleprio
User avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2020
Last visit: 03 May 2026
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
59
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Italy
GPA: 3.71
Posts: 56
Kudos: 59
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 03:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I) The first bold sentence gives a reason to reject the proposed action of founding the startup.
(Which is done by confronting the projections with another similar firm)

II) The second instead contraddicts the rejection based on a more compelling assumption
( that the founder had a positive historical record and an important partnership)

IMO E!
User avatar
kapoora10
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2024
Last visit: 03 May 2026
Posts: 109
Own Kudos:
95
 [1]
Given Kudos: 7
Location: India
Concentration: Real Estate, Sustainability
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q88 V74 DI84
GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80
GPA: 8.03
WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Management)
Products:
Forum Quiz
GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80
Posts: 109
Kudos: 95
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 04:00
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let's assess each option one by one:
A=> Second part does not accept the challenge - it overrides it. Eliminate.
B=> second consideration is directly related, not unrelated. Eliminate.
C=> The second does not qualify the evidence. Eliminate.
D=> First => Objection based on historical precedent. Second: contrasting factor that outweighed the objection. Correct.
E=> the second is a decision based on other factors and not a contradictory conclusion. Eliminate.

Answer => D
User avatar
remdelectus
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2025
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 58
Own Kudos:
48
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 58
Kudos: 48
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 04:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D. The statement introduces an objection based on what was there before and secondly there is a contrasting of the objection in determining action to be taken.
A.not because funding was approved.
B.Not true, directly addresses why funding was approved.
C. This is not about the market dynamics so disqualified.
E. This is mostly about the factors and not the two.
User avatar
Prakruti_Patil
User avatar
Joined: 24 May 2023
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 126
Own Kudos:
37
 [1]
Given Kudos: 389
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 126
Kudos: 37
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 05:17
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A) The first can be considered a challenge to a forecast, however, the second doesn't abandon the forecast, it gives a workaround

B) the first is indeed identifying a weakness, but the second is not providing support to the plan, it is stating how the plan got executed

C) the second is not giving a market dynamic qualifier, it is speaking of a specific situation

D) CORRECT - yes, the first is an objection based on precedent, and the second shows how that objection was overcome in going ahead with the plan anyway

E) the second is not contradicting any specific assumptions, it is bringing new facts/events to life
User avatar
rianaamy
User avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2016
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
32
 [1]
Given Kudos: 21
Location: Bangladesh
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 52
Kudos: 32
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 05:21
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A 2nd part didn't abandon the forecast

B 2nd part isn't irrelevant

C 2nd part didn't qualify the evidence

Correct D the descriptions are right

E 2nd part is t a conclusion
User avatar
Reon
User avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2025
Last visit: 03 May 2026
Posts: 134
Own Kudos:
121
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 134
Kudos: 121
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 05:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.(The second part does not accept any challenge and the funding is approved not abandoned) Wrong

B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.(The second is not an unrelated consideration and it explains why the funding was approved) Wrong

C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic. (The second does not qualify the objection and instead consider other factors and approves the funding) Wrong

D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action. (The first makes an objection based on past examples of similar firms growing slower and the second outweighed the objection by telling other supporting factors that led to successful funding) Correct

E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.(The second does not rely on an assumption, it relies on facts like execution history) Wrong
User avatar
forestmayank
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2025
Last visit: 31 Mar 2026
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
87
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 103
Kudos: 87
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 06:33
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
From the paragraph:
Startups show high growth to attract investment
This often fails to show result
One firm with small team and low marketing funds showcased such high projection

BF 1 - Skepticism arose considering example of better firms showed slower growth
BF 2 - Funding approved because of founder's record and pre-launch tie ups

First BF indicated that the growth projections showcased by the firm may eventually not fructify considering bigger firms have failed to show this much growth. This is setting an example from historical experience with similar firms.

Second BF indicates that even though history has taught us that this firm may also fail to showcase similar results, funding was still approved on account of founder's execution history and pre-launch distribution partnership.

A. Second part does not accept the challenge, rather it states the contradiction from precedent because of which funding was approved. Hence no.
B. First is historical experience and not a structural weakness. Second does not present unrelated contradiction. Hence no.
C. Second part is not qualifying the evidence but showcasing the contradiction from the historical experience resulting in approval of the investment.
D. It states that first presents a historical precedent and second a contradiction from this precedent because of a contrasting factor which are founders credentials and partnerships.
E. Second part is not contradictory conclusion. It is an assumption that the founder would keep his good record of execution and do the same in the firm. Hence no.

Hence, Best Answer Option D.
User avatar
redandme21
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2025
Last visit: 05 Jan 2026
Posts: 97
Own Kudos:
87
 [1]
Posts: 97
Kudos: 87
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 07:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A No, the second boldfaced portion says funding was approved.

B No, the first boldfaced portion doesn't identify a structural weakness. The weakness was already noted previously (small team, minimal marketing).

C No, the second boldfaced portion doesn't introduce broader market dynamic. Partnership is not a broader market dynamic.

D Correct. The first boldfaced portion is essentially an objection based on comparison to the plausibility of the projection. The second boldfaced cites other reasons that overrode the objection and led to fund.

E "more compelling assumption" isn't quite right. It's not an assumption, it's cited reasons.


IMO D
User avatar
rahumangal
User avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2022
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
66
 [1]
Given Kudos: 316
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.99
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 71
Kudos: 66
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 07:12
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
BF 1- This offers a criticism to a plan based on pervious similar events in which the plan did not work out
BF2 - It offers a compelling reason that outweighs the criticism and holds the possibility that the plan might work
A-Bf 2 doesn't accept the challenge and say to abandon the plan , instead it says that the plan might work- OUT
B-Second does not presents unrelated weakness, but something related to what's been mentioned in BF1-Out
C-Bf 2 doesn't qualify the evidence that shows that the proposed plan is weak-Out
D- Bf-1 & Bf 2 are worrd by word what we require as per our pre-thinking- Correct
E-Bf 2 doesn't provides an assumption but a fact to reject the reason that shows that the plan might not work-Out
User avatar
geocircle
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2025
Last visit: 27 Dec 2025
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
87
 [1]
Posts: 90
Kudos: 87
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 07:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A The second bold does not accept the challenge or abandon the forecast.

B The passage already stated the plan's weaknesses before the bold.

C The second bold doesn't bring a broader market dynamic. It introduces firm-specific countervailing factors.

D Right answer. The first bold is a objection based on past performance of similar firms. The second bold presents stronger, opposing considerations that justified proceeding anyway.

E The second bold is not a conclusion drawn from an assumption.


Answer D
User avatar
bhanu29
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2024
Last visit: 04 May 2026
Posts: 363
Own Kudos:
280
 [1]
Given Kudos: 263
Location: India
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
GPA: 9.11
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
Posts: 363
Kudos: 280
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 07:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.

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

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.

Gift
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
Show more
Each and every word in correct option should find support

A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
Second doesn't concluse forecast to be abondoned. Eliminate
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
Second is not unrelated. Eliminate.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
secnd doesn't qualify, if anything goes in other direction. Eliminate
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
First does introduce an objection based on history, Second does provide another factor which outweighed first objection. Looks Good
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
Second is not a conclusion, it's a fact. Eliminate.

Correct Answer: D
User avatar
topgmat25
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2025
Last visit: 05 Jan 2026
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
87
 [1]
Posts: 90
Kudos: 87
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 07:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A Second says funding was approved despite skepticism. It doesn't accept the challenge.

B The weakness was already indicated before the first boldface.

C Partnership is not a broader market dynamic, it's a specific favorable factor.

D First is an objection, but founder's history and partnership outweighed the skepticism in the funding decision. Correct answer.

E The second bold is not the argument's conclusion, it's just stating what happened.


The answer is D
User avatar
gemministorm
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2025
Last visit: 29 Apr 2026
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
112
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT Focus 1: 565 Q82 V79 DI73
GMAT Focus 2: 605 Q84 V83 DI73
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
GMAT Focus 2: 605 Q84 V83 DI73
Posts: 143
Kudos: 112
 [1]
12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: Many startups 26 Dec 2025, 07:53
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
argument: there is a evaluation of a plan which do not result well acc. to author. about 1 firm trying to apply same but did not come true due to some other factors in place.
1st is in-line to author's projection hence reject A, B, C, E.
D only fits in and further explains correctly the 2nd boldface as objection to proposal that aggressive user growth projection eventually fails.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
523 posts
bhanu29
363 posts