Vicente: Off-road vehicles should be prohibited in our province's main wilderness park. In the past decade, the park's bird populations...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Vicente: Off-road vehicles should be prohibited in our province's main wilderness park. In the past decade, the park's bird populations have declined substantially. This decline is probably attributable, at least in part, to off-road vehicle use. The number of off-road vehicles has been increasing steadily. Their use disrupts sensitive bird habitats.
In Vicente's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
Solution
Understanding the Passage
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "Off-road vehicles should be prohibited in our province's main wilderness park." |
|
| "In the past decade, the park's bird populations have declined substantially." |
|
| (Boldface 1) "This decline is probably attributable, at least in part, to off-road vehicle use." |
|
| "The number of off-road vehicles has been increasing steadily." |
|
| (Boldface 2) "Their use disrupts sensitive bird habitats." |
|
Overall Structure
Vicente is presenting a straightforward argument advocating for a policy change. He states his conclusion first, then builds his case by presenting a problem (bird decline), connecting it to off-road vehicles (causal attribution), and explaining how the harm occurs (habitat disruption).
Main Conclusion: Off-road vehicles should be prohibited in our province's main wilderness park.
Boldface Segments
- Boldface 1: This decline is probably attributable, at least in part, to off-road vehicle use.
- Boldface 2: Their use disrupts sensitive bird habitats.
Boldface Understanding
Boldface 1 Analysis:
- Function: This provides the key causal link between bird population decline and off-road vehicles
- Direction: Supports Vicente's conclusion by establishing that off-road vehicles are causing the problem he wants to solve
Boldface 2 Analysis:
- Function: This explains the mechanism or process by which off-road vehicles cause harm to birds
- Direction: Supports Vicente's conclusion by providing the scientific/logical basis for why off-road vehicles are harmful
Structural Classification
Boldface 1:
- Structural Role: Causal reasoning/attribution that connects evidence (bird decline) to the target of the proposed solution (off-road vehicles)
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "provides a reason for the author's conclusion," "offers an explanation for a phenomenon," "links evidence to the proposed solution"
Boldface 2:
- Structural Role: Supporting explanation that describes the mechanism underlying the causal relationship
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "provides additional support for the author's reasoning," "explains how the causal relationship works," "offers evidence for a claim made earlier"
Answer Choices Explained
A
The first is a conclusion for which support is offered, and itself is offered to support the second; the second is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
- 'The first is a conclusion for which support is offered' - ✓ CORRECT - Boldface 1 is indeed a conclusion supported by the bird decline fact
- 'and itself is offered to support the second' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 1 doesn't support Boldface 2; rather, Boldface 2 explains why Boldface 1 is true
- 'the second is the main conclusion drawn in the argument' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 2 is not a conclusion at all; it's an explanatory premise, and the main conclusion is the prohibition statement
B
The first is a premise offered to support the second; the second is a conclusion drawn in the argument but not the main conclusion.
- 'The first is a premise offered to support the second' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 1 is not a premise supporting Boldface 2; it's a conclusion that Boldface 2 helps explain
- 'the second is a conclusion drawn in the argument but not the main conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 2 is not a conclusion; it's a factual premise about habitat disruption
C
The first is a premise offered to support the only conclusion drawn in the argument; so is the second.
- 'The first is a premise offered to support the only conclusion drawn in the argument' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 1 is itself a conclusion (intermediate), not just a premise
- 'so is the second' - ✗ WRONG - While Boldface 2 does support the main conclusion indirectly, calling Boldface 1 merely a premise mischaracterizes its role
D
The first is the main conclusion drawn in the argument; the second is another conclusion for which support is offered, and itself is offered to support the first.
- 'The first is the main conclusion drawn in the argument' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 1 is not the main conclusion; the main conclusion is about prohibiting off-road vehicles
- 'the second is another conclusion for which support is offered, and itself is offered to support the first' - ✗ WRONG - Boldface 2 is not a conclusion; it's a factual statement about habitat disruption
E
The first is a conclusion drawn in the argument but not the main conclusion; the second is a premise offered to support the first.
- 'The first is a conclusion drawn in the argument but not the main conclusion' - ✓ CORRECT - Boldface 1 is indeed an intermediate conclusion that links bird decline to off-road vehicles
- 'the second is a premise offered to support the first' - ✓ CORRECT - Boldface 2 explains the mechanism by which off-road vehicles cause the bird decline referenced in Boldface 1
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More