Newspaper editorial: Some deforested areas have been restored with new

Question

Newspaper editorial: Some deforested areas have been restored with new trees, and new habitats have developed. Some naturalists maintain that these "rebuilt" environments are as worthy of appreciation as the old ones.  They are just as beautiful and appear to be just as natural.  However, part of our appreciation of nature is the connection to the distant past.  That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade.

Which of the following best describes the roles of the two portions in boldface?

A. The first is a premise of the editorial’s argument; the second addresses an objection to the editorial's conclusion.

B. The first presents evidence for a claim; the second explains why that evidence supports the editorial’s conclusion.

C. The first defends an assumption made by the editorial; the second explains why the editorial's conclusion undermines the position that the editorial challenges.

D. The first is the claim that the editorial directly challenges; the second is the conclusion defended by the editorial's argument.

E. The first is used to support the position that the editorial opposes; the second elaborates on the justification for the editorial's conclusion.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Break down the argument into its pieces.

Newspaper editorial:

Context:   Some deforested areas have been restored with new trees, and new habitats have developed.

Opinion of Naturalists:   these "rebuilt" environments are as worthy of appreciation as the old ones. 
  Premise of Naturalists:    They are just as beautiful and appear to be just as natural.

Premise of editorial:   However, part of our appreciation of nature is the connection to the distant past.  That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade. 
 Unsaid conclusion of editorial:    these "rebuilt" environments are NOT as worthy of appreciation as the old ones.

Option E. The first is used to support the position that the editorial opposes; the second elaborates on the justification for the editorial's conclusion.
Makes sense. Editorial opposes the position of the naturalists. Naturalists use BF1 to support their position. 
The BF2 elaborates on the justification given by the editorial to support its own position.

Answer (E)

KarishmaB · Answer

The editorial is giving us facts that are against the naturalist's argument. Hence we know that the editorial's opinion (conclusion) is opposed to that of the naturalists, even if it doesn't explicitly mention it. Take a simpler example.

A:  This city has beautiful gardens and sculptures.  It is the most beautiful city in the world. 
B: But it also has broken roads and heaps of garbage piled at various places.  They look very unsightly.

Here also, the first is used to support the position that B opposes; the second elaborates on the justification for B's conclusion (which is not given but obvious). B's conclusion is that it is not the most beautiful city in the world.

@  purplelemonsoda  -  A claim is an opinion which is a conlcusion.

sayan640 · Answer

The conclusion of the naturalist :- "These rebuilt environments are as worthy of appreciation as the old ones. " The naturalists say this thing because they think that "these environments are just as beautiful and as natural as they used to be prior to deforestation ".
The word "worthy of being appreciation " is key here.
But this conclusion made by the naturalists is opposed by the editorial . How do we know that it is being opposed ?
Notice the word "However".
"However" is a contrast word and hence is used for opposing the prior argument.
The part that follows is the conclusion of the editorial and it gets elaborated on in the next sentence. 
E is the answer.
 KarishmaB

Posted from my mobile device

SergejK · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB

Unspecified conclusions are a thing in a boldfaced question? I thought that "That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade" was the conclusion. Why, becuase "part of our appreciation of nature is the connection to the distant past". That is why I decided against E, as the second boldfaced part is presented as justification of the conclusion and not the conclusion itself. How could I have avoided this trap? It didn't feel for me like a part of the premise. Is it not a conclusion because no assumption is inbetween the premise and the second boldfaced text? Would appreciate your support here.

KarishmaB · Answer

Identifying the conclusion is the most important aspect of solving a CR question. Focus on what a conclusion is - what the author wants to tell you. The reason he made the effort to write the argument.
Here the author (editorial) tells us that naturalists suggest that "rebuilt" environments are as worthy of appreciation as the old ones. Then he starts his own argument with 'however' to show the contrast opinion he is going to present. So essentially what is the author trying to say? that "rebuilt" environments are not as worthy of appreciation as the old ones. The author presents a point opposed to the opinion of the naturalists. The conclusion is the main point of the argument. Don't bind yourself to gimmicks such as 'why'. Break down every CR argument into its components to practice.

SergejK · Answer

KarishmaB : Coming back to this argument, can we say that if an opposing view is presented, the author then starts to present counter premises against the conclusion, a clear indicator for a conclusion will be that it attacks the opposing view's conclusion? And in this case, such an attack is missing because it is implied.

purplelemonsoda · Answer

Also, I had the same question that  SergejK  has. How did you know not to attribute the second boldface as the conclusion? 
Also, do we say that claim means conclusion?  KarishmaB

purplelemonsoda · Answer

Marty Murray or ExpertGlobal Team please

KarishmaB · Answer

The conclusion is the main point of the author. Why did he say what he said? What is that one message that he wanted to get across? 
Was it: That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade?
or was it: No, these "rebuilt" environments are NOT as worthy of appreciation as the old ones?

What prompted the author to speak? He does not agree with the naturalists. He gives his reasons in his argument.

SwethaReddyL · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB , could you please explain why is D wrong?

RuchaShende · Answer

Hello,

Could you please explain why is D not the correct option? Isn’t the first sentence a claim that the editorial is challenging, as it says,  “They are just as beautiful and appear to be just as natural” ? And the second is a conclusion, which defends the editorial’s argument about why the restored forest is not that worthy of appreciation.

Thank you in advance.

KarishmaB · Answer

Newspaper editorial:

Context:   Some deforested areas have been restored with new trees, and new habitats have developed.

Opinion of Naturalists:   these "rebuilt" environments are as worthy of appreciation as the old ones. 
  Premise of Naturalists:    They are just as beautiful and appear to be just as natural.

Premise of editorial:   However, part of our appreciation of nature is the connection to the distant past.  That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade.  
  Unsaid conclusion of editorial:   these "rebuilt" environments are NOT as worthy of appreciation as the old ones

D. The first is the claim that the editorial directly challenges; the second is the conclusion defended by the editorial's argument.

The first can be considered a claim but the editorial does not challenge it. The editorial does not say that they are not beautiful or do not appear natural. The editorial brings in a new point about what leads to appreciation - connect with the past. It says that they do not have connect with the past.

Also, the second cannot be called the conclusion of the editorial. It elaborates on the premise. The conclusion of the argument is that these "rebuilt" environments are NOT as worthy of appreciation as the old ones.

lily123400 · Answer

Main Idea: Although some deforested areas have been restored and are beautiful in appearance, the manmade aspect makes it a different experience than pure nature.

A. The first is a premise of the editorial’s argument; the second addresses an objection to the editorial's conclusion. 
The first is not a premise because the editorialist disagrees so incorrect

B. The first presents evidence for a claim; the second explains why that evidence supports the editorial’s conclusion. 
The second does not explain why the first supports the editorialist since the editorialist isn't using the beauty of manmade areas as evidence for their claim.

C. The first defends an assumption made by the editorial; the second explains why the editorial's conclusion undermines the position that the editorial challenges. 
The first is not really an assumption made by the editorial it's presented as an assertion made by the naturalists.

D. The first is the claim that the editorial directly challenges; the second is the conclusion defended by the editorial's argument. 
The editorialist isn't challenging the beauty of preserves but rather the meaning behind it.

E. The first is used to support the position that the editorial opposes; the second elaborates on the justification for the editorial's conclusion. 
The first is used to justify the naturalist's claim since they are asserting the appearance makes it the same. The second also explains why the editorialist thinks the appearance doesn't make up for the appreciation

Newspaper editorial: Some deforested areas have been restored with new

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

Newspaper editorial: Some deforested areas have been restored with new

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