GMAT Verbal: Journalist: Well-known business Arnold B....

[RonPurewal]

you said everything under ":" will be considered as a fact.

i said no such thing.

in fact, i said essentially the opposite: that the presence of "name:" has NO effect on whether statements are facts or claims.
"name:" just tells us who is saying things; it doesn't change the nature of those things.

[tusharkhatri18]

Hi Ron Sir,
My mistake! Sorry for that ...

I am now not copy pasting the exact text and so reiterating the question in my own words.

This statement is said by a hunter - that hunters alone are blamed for the decline in deer population.
He then explains that this former is not the only reason behind the decline, but there is one more reason of it - role of black bears. He proves this by stating that during the past decade black bears population has risen very much and the dead black bears found during hunting session proved they recently fed on deers.

Now I am not able to understand how the bold sentence is a judgment, opposite to what you explained earlier.

[RonPurewal]

Now I am not able to understand how the bold sentence is a judgment, opposite to what you explained earlier.

^^ ??
nothing i wrote earlier could be taken to suggest that this statement must be a fact. you must be misinterpreting something i wrote. can you please quote the part you're referring to? (maybe i didn't write it clearly enough)

[RonPurewal]

in any case, in that example the boldface is something the hunter things is wrong! so, clearly, this statement is debatable. if something can be debated, it's not a fact.

[gbyhats]

I really want to share an approach that Ron had taught us:
make CR a real-life example

(I find it very effective when you substitute yourself to the person in question -- for example, substitute yourself into Arnold Bergeron)

Choice E will be a very attractive answer after you've gone through the following:

--

let's rewrite this CR:

I'm a celebrity in NY state and I always say that I want to be a governor, and even though I've done the paperwork every year, I never show up as a candidate.

A journalist notice this and he says: oh look! Jackson has done the paperwork, so Jackson will very like to be a candidate this year.

--

It becomes natural to me to think: come on! this journalist draw this conclusion too quickly. Filing paperwork doesn't mean I will go.

(Image a situation when you friend see you are buying Manhattan GMAT prep book on amazon, and he say: "Hey Jackson, you plan to study for GMAT test?" However, actually, I don't have to, right? What if, I will buy a new GMAT prep book every six month? Then it become wired to say I'm very likely to study GMAT)

--

And now it becomes clear why other choices are less preferable:

A. the fact that someone is richer than me cannot prove the fact that that I will likely be a candidate

B. Whether filing paperwork is the only way to be a candidate cannot prove the fact that I will likely be a candidate
(Image Manhattan GMAT prep is the only book that teaches GMAT. Buying this book doesn't means I will likely study GMAT)

C. Whether the journalists get the info from the election office cannot prove the fact that I will likely be a candidate

D. I'm richer cannot prove the fact that I will likely be a candidate

[RonPurewal]

(:
well done.

does the blue/green coloring have any significance?

[gbyhats]

does the blue/green coloring have any significance?

Hahaha, nope

It seems that coloring may draw undue attention, I will be more careful about this
(My intention was to say "blue shows my re-interpret of the question, and green shows my analogy"

[RonPurewal]

ok.

in general, colored text should be reserved for two things:

1/
to highlight parts of a problem;

2/
to make VERY important points.

since #2 is our job, this really just boils down to #1--use labels to highlight components of a problem.

thanks.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - when solving evaluate questions, the way to solve evaluate questions is the yes /no branch method

- If Yes : see if this strengthens or weakens the argument
- If No : see if this does the opposite to the "Yes" scenario.

When it comes to option B - the 2 branches are

- If Yes -- this strengthen the argument even more
- if No -- this weakens the argument completely

Thus, I thought B was a legitimate answer because i got opposite (Strenghten when yes | weaken whe no)

Is there any way to absolutely eliminate option B ?

B and E seem to me on equal footing.

Thank you !

[TiffanyB]

Hello JbhB682,

You're correct about the method that you described:

Hi Experts - when solving evaluate questions, the way to solve evaluate questions is the yes /no branch method

- If Yes : see if this strengthens or weakens the argument
- If No : see if this does the opposite to the "Yes" scenario.

However, you're not evaluating B correctly, it seems.

When it comes to option B - the 2 branches are

- If Yes -- this strengthen the argument even more
- if No -- this weakens the argument completely

First, restate your goal clearly. The goal is to evaluate the conclusion that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

Journalist: ... year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

b) is submitting ... requirements?

Yes, it's the only way to fulfill financial disclosure requirements. --> Bergeron seems to starting process, which looks like a strengthener.

No, it's not the only way. There are also other ways. --> If there are other ways, then Bergeron has still satisfied one of them. The answer choices isn't say are there other requirements, but rather asks whether there are other ways to MEET the requirements. This does nothing to the argument.

[JbhB682]

............

First, restate your goal clearly. The goal is to evaluate the conclusion that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

Journalist: ... year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

b) is submitting ... disclosure requirements?

Yes, it's the only way to fulfill financial disclosure requirements. --> Bergeron seems to starting process, which looks like a strengthener.

No, it's not the only way. There are also other ways. --> If there are other ways, then Bergeron has still satisfied one of them. The answer choices isn't say are there other requirements, but rather asks whether there are other ways to MEET the requirements. This does nothing to the argument.

Thanks so much Tiffany.

I think what you are saying regarding the red specifically is this : Had option B been this instead, you would have selected option B variation.

(Option B variation)
Are there other requirements other than the financial disclosure requirements to fulfill while running for government?

Yes, there are other requirements as well --------> we only know AB has done financial disclosure requirements but there are other requirements ---> this weaken the conclusion that maybe he is running.

No, there are no other requirements -----------------> we only know AB has completed the financial disclosure requirements --> this strenthen the conclusion that maybe he is running because he has done everything

[Whit Garner]

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t1879.html