Boldfaced questions can be a bit daunting for even those who are otherwise scoring a 90+%ile on the Verbal section of the GMAT. This is because while there are plenty of strategies for other question types tested on the Verbal Reasoning section, there are relatively few tips/strategies for the Boldfaced questions, and it would appear that one would need to read the entire passage and understand the meaning of complicated legal terminology (“consideration”, “objection”, “judgement”, “premise”, “assertion” etc. – wait, was this statement a premise or claim??) to arrive at the correct answer. This process can seem pretty time-consuming, and you may end up spending more than 3-4 mins to solve such a question, which, in turn, can have a cascading effect on the timing/accuracy of the remaining questions (you’re allowed roughly 1.8m/q for a GMAT Verbal question, and roughly 1.5m/q for a GRE Verbal Reasoning question). However, it is important to recognize that every question type on either the GMAT/GRE tests your ability to think logically rather than your capability of comprehending “legalese” :). In this post, I will share a simple 3-pronged strategy to solve a boldfaced question easily, and in under 1.5 mins, based on critical thinking and the process of elimination.
Firstly, let us see what a boldfaced question/options would look like on the GMAT (source GMAT OG)-
Chaco Canyon, a settlement of the ancient Anasazi culture in North America, had massive buildings. It must have been a major Anasazi center. Analysis of wood samples shows that some of the timber for the buildings came from Chuska and San Mateo Mountains, 50 miles from Chaco Canyon. Only a major cultural center would have the organizational power to import timber from 50 miles away.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is premise used to support the argument’s main conclusion; the second is the argument’s main conclusion.
(B) The first is the argument’s main conclusion; the second is a premise used to support that conclusion.
(C) The first is one of the two premises used to support the argument’s main conclusion; the second is the other of those two premises.
(D) The first is premise used to support the argument’s main conclusion; the second is a premise used to support another conclusion drawn in the argument.
(E) The first is inferred from another statement in the argument; the second is inferred from the first.
As we can see, generally 2 sentences will be in the bolded portion, and we have to identify the relationship between these sentences. The first step in approaching a boldfaced question is to design a map of the 2 sentences, and then start eliminating the options based on your map. (A quick pro-tip before we proceed – in a CR option, always read the word “argument” as the “author writing the argument”). There are 3 key logical steps involved in the mapping process.
- Step 1: Identify the logical roles of Statements 1 and 2: Check whether Statement 1 and Statement 2 – i.e., the 2 sentences in the boldfaced portion – are a fact or an opinion (just focus on the categorization based on this dichotomy). If a statement is a piece of data such as number, report, study, general truth, it would be categorized as a “fact”. Similarly, if the statement is a prediction/recommendation/suggestion, it would be categorized as “opinion” (check for keywords such as may, must, could, should, will, etc.). This is the end of Step 1 – simple, right? 🙂
- Step 2: Identify which sentence – this does NOT necessarily have to be in the boldfaced portion – is the main conclusion of the passage. A way to identify the main conclusion sentence is to ask the question – “Which sentence in the passage captures the main reason that the author is writing the passage?” (this is similar to the line of reasoning used for a primary purpose question). END of STEP 2.
- Step 3 (last step): Identify the relationship – support/refute – between Statement 2/1 and the main conclusion (identified in Step 2). To complete this step quickly, identify the structure of the 2 sentences – i.e., look for connectors. For example, if the structure of the 2 sentences is something along the lines of “Statement 2. However, main conclusion. “, quite clearly the relationship between Statement 2 and the main conclusion is one of contradiction. END of STEP 3.
And…WE ARE DONE! Now, let us form the map for the above question:
- Step 1
- Statement 1 – It must have been a major Anasazi center. This, clearly (notice the word “must”), is an opinion
- Statement 2 – Only a major cultural center would have the organizational power to import timber from 50 miles away. This again (notice the word “would”), is an opinion of the author
- Step 2
Now, this is where I have seen a lot of my students getting it wrong. In this passage, there are only 2 sentences (2nd and 4th) which are opinions. The 1st and 3rd sentences provide factual information. A way to identify the main conclusion, however, is to ask the question – “Why is the author writing the passage?”. Is he writing the passage to argue that “Only a major cultural center would have the organizational power to import timber from 50 miles away” or is he writing the passage to prove that “It (Chaco Canyon) must have been a major Anasazi center”?
If we think about it logically, the first statement is something that would be well-known (could be found online or in a book). It does not need to explained via a whole new passage – also note that there is not that much contention/debate around the idea that only a major cultural center would have the organizational power to import timber from 50 miles away (seems reasonably logical). Hence, the PRIMARY PURPOSE of this passage (the reason why the author took the pain to write a brand new passage) must be to contend that Chaco Canyon must have been a major Ansazi center. Hence our first boldfaced statement is also the main conclusion.
- Step 3
Identify the Relationship – support/refute – between statement 2 and main conclusion. Quite clearly, there is no contrast marker (such as “However”, “Although”, “But”, etc.) between Statement 2 and the main conclusion. So, the 2 statements must be supporting each other. This is the most effective way to complete Step 3.
Now that we are done with our 3 steps, let us refine our map one last time for the 2 boldfaced statements:
Statement 1: Main conclusion
Statement 2: Opinion supporting/being supported by the main conclusion.
Now, let us apply our favorite process of elimination to the options. Option A, C, D say that “The first is premise used to support the argument’s main conclusion”. However, we just identified that Statement 1 is, in fact, the main conclusion. Therefore, if a statement is the main conclusion, and an option says anything but [e.g., supporting/refuting the main conclusion] (and vice-versa), that option can be eliminated. This eliminates A, C, and D.
If we quickly check our map, we see that option B is almost a perfect match to the relationship between the 2 sentences (as per our map). On the exam day, at this stage, you should select Option B and move on. Option E can also be eliminated on the ground that the second statement is a standalone statement and not inferred from any other sentence in the passage. Hence, this leaves Option B as the best answer. Done.
Note that I have not even touched upon the word “premise” as a decision point to eliminate any option(s). And this, precisely, is the method to ace Boldfaced questions – avoid focusing on the legal jargon, and instead focus on the logical relationship – and everything becomes easy-peasy!
Apply this strategy to other official boldfaced questions, and see whether you are able to solve a boldfaced question within the time limit. Please feel free to leave any comments in case of queries.
#GMAT30 #GMATprep #CR #Boldfaced #99thpercentileprocess #Thinklikea99thpercentiler
