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

Question

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.

souvik101990 · Answer

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

thevenus · 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.

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 a threat which can be considered as the conclusion.This is based on the computer studies not on any assumptions(2nd bold face)

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  
 This gives an additional information regarding the apprehension (which is conclusion that the north pole will be ice free in 5 years due to blah blah )This sentence supports the info of 1st bold face and adds point into the computer study made in second line.

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. 
 not belief, its based on computer study ; second is not conclusion at any cost, it is an added belief /consideration. 
B. The first is a prediction based on some evidence; the second is that evidence. 
 not prediction, its based on computer study ; 2nd is not evidence it is an added belief /consideration 
C. The first is the conclusion; the second is the assumption on which the conclusion is based. 
 though the first bold face can be the conclusion but the second is not the core assumption for the conclusion, the 1st bold face has an computer study for its validity. 
D. The first is an apprehension against some belief; the second is an explanation in support of that apprehension.  correct 
E. The first is a prediction; the second is the explanation on which the prediction is based. 
 not prediction, its based on computer study ; the second bold face is not the core explanation for the prediction.

harshavmrg · Answer

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

daagh · Answer

We cannot make out much from the first bold face; it is an apprehension, it is a conclusion and it is a prediction. It can be anything. Therefore, let us exploit the second boldface. The second is after all a repetition of the first in part.

A. The first is an apprehension against some belief; the second is the conclusion based on that apprehension.....   The second is not a conclusion, it is an extension of evidence 
B. The first is a prediction based on some evidence; the second is that evidence. --- I f first were a prediction, then the evidence exists even without the second bold face in the form of computer studies. So, second could at best be additional evidence and not the sole evidence on which that prediction is drawn,  
C. The first is the conclusion; the second is the assumption on which the conclusion is based. …  An assumption is never stated in the stimulus. If it is stated, it is not an assumption but a premise. C is gone.  
D. The first is an apprehension against some belief; the second is an explanation in support of that apprehension. ---  It is the ‘against some belief’ that is problematic. The feeling is not based on any belief. It is based on solid premise as found in computer studies. – D is gone  
E. The first is a prediction; the second is the explanation on which the prediction is based.  Yes the second boldface is an explanation why the disaster is going to happen in just five years.

E is the anser IMO

Bull78 · Answer

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.

IanStewart · Answer

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.

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

jlgdr · Answer

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

sahilchaudhary · Answer

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.

Anyway, good question.

jlgdr · Answer

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?

mejia401 · Answer

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.

jlgdr · Answer

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

jlgdr · Answer

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

Nihaljain · 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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

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

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

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

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