[Padmalathas]

OA is D! Could you explain ?

[Padmalathas]

And why not C?

[pingu]

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.


In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?


A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

I would go for Option C . As bold portions go against each other. I would have gone for D, If the word criticizes was not used. I don't think author(historian) actually criticized. what you say PGs?

[naga25french]

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

OA is D! Could you explain ?

Originally Posted by BizzareNym

IMO D
Whats the OA. plz let me know if you want me to explain.

why not E ?

pls state the reason ...

[BizzareNym]

there r 3 conclusions in the argument, all in sequence.
First is the prevailing one. 2nd is the one that researchers have recently come up with. and 3rd one what Author/Historian suggests.

if you read carefully, u will find that first boldface is an evidence for the 2nd conclusions. Based on this evidence researchers conclude that both scientists' work are not independent and traditional view is false.

Author does not agree to the second conclusion but rather comes up with his own on the basis of evidence in second boldface. "A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however...." what follows this underquoted line is the evidence that author presents in 2nd boldface.

I have explained below C & E why they are not correct.

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

And why not C?

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

OA is D! Could you explain ?

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.


In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?


A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
the first part of this option begins correctly but in the end it says that "intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends". This is wrong. Author's conclusion is in fact against the intermediate conclusion.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

First part of this option is correct. Second part is wrong. The purpose of second boldface is not to substantiate the evidence cited in first boldface, but rather it is an evidence that author uses to draw his own conclusion.

Originally Posted by BizzareNym

IMO D
Whats the OA. plz let me know if you want me to explain.

[rahulsar]

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.


In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?


A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

IMO - D

A & B - 1st statement is wrongly connected
C - both are different claims and opposing the previous notion, not each other
E - both are different claims

[jha16june]

Originally Posted by Padmalathas

Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.


In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?


A. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.

B. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.

C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.

D. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

E. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

I would like to give simple explamation for this CR:
The first sentence is against the traditional thought(over all position). So options A B and C gone as they say "The first provides evidence in support of the overall position ".
Now in D and E, first part of the options are same but E says that "the second is further information that .." but actually the 2nd is not a further info rather a contradictiry info.
So D is the correct answer.

[mvikred]

Got this question right, but I want to be sure about the reasons for eliminating one of the options.

So here goes

Lately many people in a certain post-communist country have decided to emigrate for economic reasons. The people who want to leave the country in search of a job or a better life are those who have no money, or who know many foreign languages. Of the following people, who is LEAST likely to emigrate ?
A. A person who knows 2 foreign languages, but doesnt have any money
B. A person who knows 2 foreign languages, but is afraid to travel
C. A person who has no money ot travel and knows a second language at an elementary level
D. A person who knows no foreign languages and has a suitable quantity of money
E. A person who has money to leave the country, but is happy about his/her present situation


Cheers !!

[nuttyvarun]

I would have marked option D..lemme know the OA plz..

The people who want to leave the country in search of a job or a better life are those;
1. who have no money, or
2. who know many foreign languages.

so either one or more conditions must be satisfied.. in option D none is satisfied.. hence the answer must be option D

Originally Posted by mvikred

Got this question right, but I want to be sure about the reasons for eliminating one of the options.

So here goes

Lately many people in a certain post-communist country have decided to emigrate for economic reasons. The people who want to leave the country in search of a job or a better life are those who have no money, or who know many foreign languages. Of the following people, who is LEAST likely to emigrate ?
A. A person who knows 2 foreign languages, but doesnt have any money
Fit to emigrate (knows 2 foreign languages + no money)
B. A person who knows 2 foreign languages, but is afraid to travel
Fit to emigrate (knows 2 foreign languages)
C. A person who has no money ot travel and knows a second language at an elementary level
close.. but a little too out of context..
D. A person who knows no foreign languages and has a suitable quantity of money
not fit to emigrate at all.. (doenst know multiple foreign languages and also HAS money)
E. A person who has money to leave the country, but is happy about his/her present situation
confusing & tempting - but again out of context


Cheers !!

[kiranmyneni]

would go with D .
The reasoning of varun is good.