Newspaper editorial: Some deforested areas have been restored with new trees, and new habitats have developed. Some naturalists maintain that...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

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?

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

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

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

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

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
"Some deforested areas have been restored with new trees, and new habitats have developed."	What it says: The author states that certain areas where forests were cut down have been replanted with trees, and new animal/plant communities have formed there. Visualization: Original forest: \(1000 \text{ acres} \rightarrow \text{Deforested: } 0 \text{ acres} \rightarrow \text{Restored: } 1000 \text{ acres}\) with new trees and wildlife habitats What it does: This establishes the context about environmental restoration efforts. Source: Author's factual statement
"Some naturalists maintain that these 'rebuilt' environments are as worthy of appreciation as the old ones."	What it says: Environmental scientists believe these human-restored areas deserve the same respect and admiration as the original natural forests. Visualization: Naturalists' view: Original forest value \(= 100\) points, Rebuilt forest value \(= 100\) points (equal appreciation) What it does: This introduces one side of a debate about the value of restored environments. Source: Naturalists' viewpoint (not the author's)
(Boldface 1) "They are just as beautiful and appear to be just as natural."	What it says: The rebuilt forests look equally attractive and seem equally natural as the original forests. Visualization: Visual comparison: Original forest beauty \(= \frac{10}{10}\), Rebuilt forest beauty \(= \frac{10}{10}\); Original forest naturalness appearance \(= \frac{10}{10}\), Rebuilt forest naturalness appearance \(= \frac{10}{10}\) What it does: This provides supporting reasons for why naturalists think rebuilt environments deserve equal appreciation. Source: Naturalists' reasoning/evidence
"However, part of our appreciation of nature is the connection to the distant past."	What it says: The author argues that when we value nature, an important element is feeling connected to ancient, historical processes. Visualization: Nature appreciation components: Beauty \((30\%) + \text{Naturalness } (30\%) + \text{Historical connection } (40\%) = \text{Total appreciation}\) What it does: This introduces the author's counterargument by identifying a crucial factor the naturalists overlooked. Source: Author's view
(Boldface 2) "That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade."	What it says: When people know an environment was created by humans, they lose the sense of connection to ancient history. Visualization: Historical connection value: Ancient forest \(= 100\%\) connection, Known human-made forest \(= 0\%\) connection What it does: This completes the author's counterargument, explaining why rebuilt environments cannot match original ones in value. Source: Author's reasoning

Overall Structure

The author presents a debate about environmental restoration. First, they report naturalists' view that rebuilt environments equal original ones, then counter with their own argument about historical connection being essential to nature appreciation.

Main Conclusion: Rebuilt environments cannot be as worthy of appreciation as original natural environments because they lack the crucial element of connection to the distant past.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: They are just as beautiful and appear to be just as natural.
Boldface 2: That feeling will be lost in an environment known to be humanmade.

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1 Function: This serves as evidence supporting the naturalists' position that rebuilt environments deserve equal appreciation.
Boldface 1 Direction: Opposite direction - it supports the view that the author ultimately rejects.

Boldface 2 Function: This serves as the key reasoning behind the author's counterargument against the naturalists' position.
Boldface 2 Direction: Same direction - it directly supports the author's conclusion that rebuilt environments cannot match original ones.

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: Evidence for a position the author opposes
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence for a view that the author rejects," "support for a position the author disputes"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Supporting reason for the author's main conclusion
Predicted Answer Patterns: "explanation supporting the author's conclusion," "reasoning behind the author's argument"

Answer Choices Explained

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

'The first is a premise of the editorial's argument' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface supports the naturalists' view, not the editorial's argument. The editorial actually disagrees with this statement.
'the second addresses an objection to the editorial's conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't address an objection; it provides reasoning that supports the editorial's conclusion.

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

'The first presents evidence for a claim' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface does present evidence (beauty and naturalness) for the naturalists' claim.
'the second explains why that evidence supports the editorial's conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't explain how the first supports the editorial's conclusion. Instead, it provides separate reasoning about why rebuilt environments lack historical connection.

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 defends an assumption made by the editorial' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface doesn't defend the editorial's assumption; it supports the opposing naturalists' view.
'the second explains why the editorial's conclusion undermines the position that the editorial challenges' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't explain how the conclusion undermines the naturalists' position; it simply provides reasoning for the editorial's own conclusion.

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

'The first is the claim that the editorial directly challenges' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface is evidence supporting a claim, not the claim itself. The claim being challenged is that rebuilt environments are as worthy as original ones.
'the second is the conclusion defended by the editorial's argument' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is reasoning that supports the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

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 support the position that the editorial opposes' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface provides evidence for the naturalists' view that rebuilt environments deserve equal appreciation, which the editorial opposes.
'the second elaborates on the justification for the editorial's conclusion' - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface explains why rebuilt environments cannot provide the same appreciation as original ones, supporting the editorial's conclusion.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...