Boldfaced: The Easiest Type of Critical Reasoning Question?

Simple:

All critical reasoning arguments are built of facts, assumptions, and conclusions.

The 'role' is basically just whether it’s a 'fact', 'assumption', or 'conclusion'. In general, however, assumptions will go unstated. Generally speaking, you’re more likely than not looking for a fact or a conclusion.

Organization matters

It’s pretty normal to think that critical reasoning questions will state facts and then draw conclusions from these facts. That’s the bullet-point structure of standard GMAT CR question.

Boldfaced questions are an exception: They can have a slightly more complicated structure, quite often including two competing conclusions.

We’re going to look at whether statements in the argument are fact-based or opinion-based. This is an a priori, or first-glance, sort of distinction.

‘Cause if you got Facts, they ain’t going to be “judgments” or “criticism” or “conclusion” or anything else that might be opinion-based. Got it?

So what’s fact-based?

A fact is objective and recordable. Can you write it down or take a photo of it? Log it in an Excel spreadsheet?

What’s opinion-based?

This is where you introduce the weirdness of “opinion.” My advice: Question the source. If there is a source, and the statement is dependent on this source, then it’s got to be an opinion-based statement.

A technique for ripping boldfaced questions to shreds

You’re probably as sick as I am of these questions already. Let’s tear them apart.

Step one:

Do not read the argument.

Read the first boldfaced phrase. Is it fact-based? Eliminate all answer choices where the first statement is opinion-based now.

Is it opinion-based? Eliminate all answer choices where the first statement is fact-based now.

Step two:

Still do not read the argument.

Read the second boldfaced phrase. Is it opinion-based? Eliminate all answer choices where the second statement is fact-based now.

Is it fact-based? Eliminate all answer choices where the second statement is opinion-based now.

Now there are likely only two choices left. If there are three, so be it. Context will sweep up the mess.

Step three:

Now you can read the argument. I know you wanted to all along, but it’s better this way.

Figure out how the remaining statements work in context.

E.g. is the second statement the “primary conclusion” or is it a conclusion that “the argument calls into question?” Is the first statement a fact that supports the conclusion while the second statement is a fact that works against the conclusion? Do they both support the conclusion?

What we’re always looking for in boldfaced questions is how the different chunks of the argument fit together like puzzle pieces.

Let’s apply this technique by breaking down a question:

It is widely thought that musicians produce their most lauded work early in their careers. It is often suggested that this is because age decreases these musicians’ ability to produce creative work. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of musicians such as Leonard Cohen or Lee Hazlewood, who produced their most career-defining work in their 40s or beyond, although it must be noted that many of these musicians became professional musicians as a second or third career. This suggests that since many musicians have been playing music professionally for decades by the time they reach their 40s, the true reason that professional musicians often do not produce creative work by this point in life is not a function of age, but rather that they have been working as professional musicians for too long a period of time.

a)   The first is a judgment, the accuracy of which is contested by the argument; the second is a conclusion drawn on the basis of this judgment.
b)   The first is a criticism of a position raised within the argument; the second is that position.
c)   The first is a circumstance that has been used to support an explanation that the argument does not favor; the second is that explanation.
d)   The first is a circumstance that has been used to support an explanation that the argument does not favor; the second is a competing explanation that the argument favors.
e)   The first provides evidence to support an explanation that the argument favors; the second is that explanation.

Step one

The first statement is presented as a fact.

That means a) and b)—judgment and criticism—are long gone. We have c), d), and e) to contend with.

Step two

The second statement is definitely opinion-based.

Roughly, it’s some sort of conclusion. But c), d), and e) all state “explanation.” This is going to be uglier than I’d hoped for.

Back to the context

The first sentence is a fact and a conclusion, but it’s not what the argument as a whole is actually saying. Rather, the full argument seems to argue against this. That sounds like two competing mini-arguments: first mini-argument bad, second mini-argument good.

Does this help us divide among the answers?

c) Note that the first boldfaced statement is actually part of the “good” mini-argument. So this answer choice is out.

d) Same thing. Toss it.

Obviously now we’re eliminated down to e). Nevertheless, let’s double-check to make sure.

e) It’s part of the “good” mini-argument, so that’s a yes.

This is the conclusion section of the “good” mini-argument, so that’s a yes. Done. Looks like the answer is most definitely e).

Conclusion

Perhaps the biggest problem with boldfaced questions is that they require us to look at the argument from an almost purely structural standpoint.

The only realistic way to get through them is to develop a technique that can be applied in any circumstance:

Read the first statement, eliminate
Read the second statement, eliminate
Check context as necessary

With this system in your back pocket, you will soon see how boldfaced questions might actually be the easiest type of critical reasoning question!

Related Categories:

GMAT/GRE

test prep

Thanks for sending your response.