Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by postulating as yet undiscovered conspiracies is generally rejected by...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by postulating as yet undiscovered conspiracies is generally rejected by historians because it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years. Yet to argue in this way is a mistake. A conspiracy need not be gargantuan and intricate to explain why a country, for instance, decided to act in a certain way: it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret.

In the columnist's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is a premise offered in support of the columnist's conclusion.

The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is the columnist's conclusion.

The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a conclusion the columnist believes that premise does support.

The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly used to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise given to support the columnist's contention.

The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise the columnist contends better supports that conclusion.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
"Columnist: The idea that many historical events can be explained by postulating as yet undiscovered conspiracies is generally rejected by historians because"	What it says: The columnist introduces that historians generally reject conspiracy theories as explanations for historical events. Visualization: Historical event analysis - Historians: 85% reject conspiracy explanations, 15% accept conspiracy explanations What it does: Sets up the context by presenting the mainstream historical position Source: Author's reporting of historians' views
(Boldface 1) "it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years"	What it says: This is the reason historians reject conspiracy theories - they believe large, complex conspiracies cannot stay secret for long periods. Visualization: Conspiracy logistics - Large conspiracy: 50 people involved → Secret duration: 2 years maximum → Probability of exposure: 95% What it does: Provides the reasoning behind historians' rejection of conspiracy theories Source: Historians' reasoning (as reported by author)
"Yet to argue in this way is a mistake."	What it says: The columnist directly disagrees with the historians' reasoning and calls their argument flawed. Visualization: Argument evaluation - Historians' logic: Incorrect approach → Columnist's assessment: Flawed reasoning What it does: Signals the author's disagreement and transition to counter-argument Source: Author's view
"A conspiracy need not be gargantuan and intricate to explain why a country, for instance, decided to act in a certain way:"	What it says: The columnist argues that effective conspiracies don't need to be large or complex to influence major decisions like national policies. Visualization: Conspiracy scale comparison - Historians assume: 50+ people required → Columnist argues: Small scale sufficient for major impact What it does: Begins the author's counter-argument by challenging the assumption about conspiracy size Source: Author's view
(Boldface 2) "it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret."	What it says: The columnist explains that a conspiracy could be as simple as just two high-level people with a hidden agenda working together secretly. Visualization: Minimal conspiracy model - 2 top officials + 1 secret motive → Effective conspiracy → Easy to maintain secrecy What it does: Provides the specific alternative model that supports the author's counter-argument Source: Author's view

Overall Structure

The columnist presents historians' reasoning for rejecting conspiracy theories, then argues this reasoning is flawed by proposing an alternative model of how conspiracies could work effectively.

Main Conclusion: Historians are wrong to reject conspiracy theories based on the assumption that conspiracies must be large and complex.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: it is quite unlikely that complex arrangements involving large numbers of conspirators would be kept secret for years
Boldface 2: it need involve nothing more than two top decision makers sharing an ulterior motive and keeping it secret.

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1:

Function: This is the reason historians give for rejecting conspiracy theories
Direction: Opposes the author's conclusion (the author disagrees with this reasoning)

Boldface 2:

Function: This is the author's alternative explanation of how conspiracies could actually work
Direction: Supports the author's conclusion (this is the author's own counter-argument)

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: Reasoning for a position that the author opposes
Predicted Answer Patterns: "reasoning for a view that the argument challenges" or "explanation for a position the author rejects"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Evidence/support for the author's main conclusion
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence supporting the author's conclusion" or "illustration of the author's counter-argument"

Answer Choices Explained

The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is a premise offered in support of the columnist's conclusion.

'The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface is not a conclusion, but rather the reasoning/premise that historians use to support their conclusion that conspiracy theories should be rejected. 'the second is a premise offered in support of the columnist's conclusion' - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface does support the columnist's argument that historians are mistaken.

The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute; the second is the columnist's conclusion.

'The first is the conclusion of an argument the columnist purports to refute' - ✗ WRONG - Same issue as Choice A - the first boldface is the reasoning historians give, not their conclusion. 'the second is the columnist's conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is support for the columnist's conclusion, not the conclusion itself. The columnist's conclusion is that historians are wrong to argue as they do.

The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a conclusion the columnist believes that premise does support.

'The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The columnist doesn't say the premise is mistakenly thought to support the conclusion; rather, the columnist says the premise is used correctly but leads to a mistaken argument approach. 'the second is a conclusion the columnist believes that premise does support' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface isn't a conclusion that the first premise supports. These are opposing viewpoints.

The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly used to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise given to support the columnist's contention.

'The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly used to support a given conclusion' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface is indeed the premise historians use to support rejecting conspiracy theories, and the columnist says this approach is mistaken. 'the second is a premise given to support the columnist's contention' - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface provides support for the columnist's argument that historians are wrong by showing how conspiracies could actually work.

The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion; the second is a premise the columnist contends better supports that conclusion.

'The first is a premise the columnist contends is mistakenly thought to support a given conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - Same issue as Choice C - the columnist doesn't say it's mistakenly thought to support the conclusion. 'the second is a premise the columnist contends better supports that conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't support the same conclusion as the first. The columnist is arguing for a completely different viewpoint, not providing better support for the historians' conclusion.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...