Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin

Question

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin contained in industrial waste and previously considered harmless is in fact very dangerous. Jones has examined several areas with high concentration of chlorocetin and found that  certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species.  The professor says that although he failed to establish an exact mechanism by which chlorocetin hampers photosynthesis, his findings are sufficient to state that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world. This conclusion, however, is unwarranted because  all that professor Jones actually established is a mere correlation between the level of chlorocetin and the speed of photosynthesis  - correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors.

The highlighted portions of the text perform which of the following functions in the argument?

A: the first is the position the author disagrees with while the second is the author's own position

B: the first contains the argument the author critiques while the second identifies a logical flaw in this argument

C: the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes while the second is a statement supporting the author's own position

D: the first describes a phenomenon which weighs against the author's opinion while the second reasons in favour of this opinion

E: the first contains information that, if true, could overthrow the author's argument while the second discredits this information

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Analysis:  There are two persons in the question: Professor Jones and the author. As one can see, the author does not agree to the argument by Professor Jones. “This conclusion, however, is unwarranted because … ( the second boldface ) “. Therefore, the opinion of the author is very much at odds with the opinion of Professor Jones. Then, let’s take a look at the first  boldface “certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species”.  This is result of a test or lab or discovery, so it is an evidence professor Jones used to back up his conclusion “Professor Jones has claimed that...”. Therefore, answer C is the correct choice.  Why is B incorrect?  “The first contains the argument the author critiques” is incorrect, because the author does not agree with the evidence (the first  boldface ), but only disagrees the conclusion (claim) made by Professor Jones. We can rule out A, D and E as they are unrelated. B states that ‘the first contains the argument the author critiques’. Nowhere in the passage does the author critique the argument; he merely attacks the conclusion that is based on the argument. Furthermore the first sentence is clearly evidence and not an argument in itself.

Darth_McDaddy · Answer

B should be the answer.

A: the first is the position the author disagrees with while the second is the authorâ€™s own position 
NO - The second bolded statement is not the author's own position.

B: the first contains the argument the author critiques while the second identifies a logical flaw in this argument 
YES - The author is actually reviewing Jones's theory, and the second bold statement actually identifies the flaw in Jones's theory.

C: the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes while the second is a statement supporting the authorâ€™s own position 
> NO. The author has stated his position, therefore the second is not supporting the author's own position

D: the first describes a phenomenon which weighs against the authorâ€™s opinion while the second reasons in favour of this opinion 
>NO. the author's opinion is not the focus of this argument

E: the first contains information that, if true, could overthrow the authorâ€™s argument while the second discredits this information
> NO. The author's opinion is not being reviewed.

FN · Answer

It should be C....

I dont see how others can be correct?

the first is evidence that is used in an argument the author disagrees with...second statement is supportin the authors argument...

Please Post OA...soon...

thanks

Praetorian · Answer

C is the best answer.

A and B are wrong because the author does not challenge the fact that â€œcertain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected speciesâ€

gmat2me2 · Answer

I am still not convinced with C....B looks better 

Can anyone explain why it is not B?

ChallengeMaker · Answer

B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes

rthothad · Answer

I would rather agree with B on the first BF rather than C which says that the author  disputes  the first BF, the author is definitely not disputing the first BF, so on this basis alone C should be eliminated.
Moreover, you yourself agree that the author AGREES with the first BF, don't you think 'C' is wrong.

ChallengeMaker · Answer

You are not careful. C does not say that the author disputes the first BF it says that first BF is an EVIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENT the author disputes. The evidence is first BF, the argument is how professor interpretes his findings. In his argument, professor uses first BF as EVIDENCE just as C says

rthothad · Answer

May be I am missing something rather fundamental, but I interpret the first part of C "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes " to mean that the first BF is an evidence in the argument which the author disputes.

HowManyToGo · Answer

Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.

forumsmba · Answer

rthothad:
As you mentioned, the first part of C is : "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes "

The argument that the author disputes is ---> chlorocetin is harmful (as suggested by Prof. Jones)
The evidence for this is ---> slower photosynthesis in the effected areas. (bolded part)

As ChallengeMaker mentioned, B is wrong because the author does not disagree with the first bold face. He only disagrees that cholorcetin is the reason for slower photosynthesis.

ChallengeMaker · Answer

B is wrong because first BF contains no argument with which the author would take issue. The author says nothing about whether he disagrees with the fact that "certain bio processes are slow" but he clearly disputes the professor's argument which is built on evidence in BF1

Note that C says that the author disputes the professor's argument (not the conclusion). This wording describes the situation pretty accurately because the author indeed disputes the arguemnt i.e. how it is constructed. He does not like the logic behind the argument so we can say that he disputes the argument.

Finally, the author's main point in this passage is to prove that the professor's claim is unwarranted. This is the author's position; it can be put into such words: "it is premature to conclude that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world". Pretty nice and clear position, don't you agree?

rthothad · Answer

When one reads the first part of C, the way 'the argument' is worded makes one refer to the entire passage not to 'chlorocetin is harmful' and can you tell me what made you think that 'the argument' is indeed 'chlorocetin is harmful'. Infact, the argument is the last few words after the second BF - "correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors"

HowManyToGo · Answer

"correlation that ***might*** not reflect any causal relationship between the factors"

The author does not prove anything here, he just bring in an argument which undermines the claim of the biologist(he does NOT REFUTE the claim) . It might be proven later that the plants slow processes were in fact due to the chemical , which was just a possibility when the biologist's claim was out.

What the author says is that the correlation **might not ** reflect causal relatioship.The way I read it "It is just a possiblity that the data might not point to a causal relationship"- He is not refuting anything here, just probably asking for some loose ends to be tied up.

 Yes ! you are right when you say that BF1 has no argument which the author critiques. 

Though POE might suggest C ( C still has to be valid)

HMTG.

forumsmba · Answer

rthothad:

I didn't think of the entire passage as an 'argument'. I read it as:

The argument that the author disputes: chlorocetin is harmful (as believed by Prof. Jones)
The author's position (argument): No proof that chlorocetin is harmful

I read first part of C as: 'the first is an evidence in the  argument the author disputes 

-fm

AJB77 · Answer

C it is for me quite clearly.

Jones presents the first BF as evidence of an argument that the author disputes. 

Second BF supports the author's position that Jones' argument is not provable.

Adit_ · Answer

First off, a really really old question I see, lol.
Secondly, I landed correctly at C as well but I was actually making a close case for either C or D only and rejected B fairly quick considering even if the first part were true, the second part that says "logical flaw in that argument" as in the argument that the professor "has" found something. He only tries to invalidate his finding through means were correlation cant lead to causation. D however I felt that it is a phenomenon true but this phenomenon again doesnt weigh against author's opinion rather they try to invalidate using correlation cant be causation. Great question however.

Can this question be bumped up more for more discussions soon as I only see comments from 2005. Thankyou!

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin

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

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin

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