Anyone trying to figure out if they understand the "Support/Conclusion" properly should do the bold-faced questions. If you get them right you definitely understand this concept. Cannot agree more with this video that this is where accuracy is lost. Every question I've gotten wrong is largely based on the fact that I didn't really understand what the passage was about. Thank you for this great content!
I Think this is the Most Important Video I've found on CR. My CR test scores have Improved dramatically and these tips are honestly fool proof for Boldface questions. Thankyou so much!
Same actually, I eliminated the other choices because they didnt feel correct but didnt realise the main conclusion is that half the injuries reported are spurious.
I felt that the 3rd question was really head cracking. I got E as the answer. I don't see how SUB CONCLUSION (as you've mentioned) is not the MAIN CONCLUSION. And why main conclusion is the conclusion here!!!!
Good question! To sort out this confusion, try asking yourself -- does the 3rd sentence support the 4th sentence? If so, the 4th sentence would be the main conclusion. Or does the 4th sentence support the 3rd sentence? If that's the case, then the 3rd sentence would be the main conclusion. In this case, notice that the 4th sentence supports the 3rd sentence. In other words, the 4th sentence suggests that people FAIL to report whiplash injuries in countries without compensation, and this explains the discrepancy between the two types of countries. So it isn't the case that countries WITH compensation have lots of spurious claims. Let me know if that helps!
Thanks for this, super helpful. Quick question - I mostly follow this approach but always end up choosing the wrong option (either stuck in the last 2 options or picked a totally different one). Can you suggest ways to tackle that? Thanks in advance.
Hey, for the 1st question, I eliminated answers A and C on the following logic and wanted to run it by you to verify if you would agree with that approach: A - essentially isn’t the conclusion since it isn’t the outcome that the letter is intended to get (that’s more evident in option B). C - the writer does say that their fellow citizens, contradictory to himself/herself, are pro conviction. So this could be evidence that individuals who have interacted with the judge outside the courtroom are not fans, while the author is, and hence from the author’s POV, they are not objective assessors. Voila, option B! I’d be so grateful if you could respond :) Thanks so much in advance.
Hi Brenson, a quick question please for Automobile Insurance: D. ..., the second is a claim presented to argue against derivating certain implication If the implication D refers to is the 3rd sentence or the main conclusion, I do not understand why the second part serves to "argue against" the conclusion. I believe it "supports" the conclusion. That particular wording is what hinders me to choose D. Please kindly let me know your thoughts. Thanks
Answer choice (D) doesn't argue against the conclusion of the passage. It tells us that "the second [bold face portion] is a claim presented to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding." "That finding" is the information provided in the first bold face portion and "deriving certain implications" refers to the conclusion drawn by some commentators that "in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported claims are spurious." The second bold face portion provides a claim that counters the implication that "half of the reported claims are spurious" in the countries with the highest reported whiplash cases. Instead, there is no incentive for people to report their whiplash injuries if they live in a country where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash. This means the discrepancy between the actual number of whiplash cases is less than the figures presented in the first boldface portion suggest, countering the claim that half of the reported whiplash injuries are spurious in countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash. This means the second bold face portion does make a claim that argues "against deriving certain implications from" the finding presented in the first bold face portion. This is part of the reason why (D) is the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
Hi, I needed some advice on how to watch these videos. After answering the passage on my own, if I get the answer correctly do I still watch the whole explanation? Or should I move onto the next question in the passage? Regards
Good question! If you feel you fully understood the question and why you got it right, you can probably skip the explanation. That being said, if you have any doubts about either your reasoning or the efficiency of your process, you may find the explanations helpful.
As Kevin Hart Says " This is something else" . Indeed the best method to find the conclusion of the passage. Using this approach makes BF questions puny . GMATNINJA- Will you attempt my GMAT exam ? :)
In question 2, couldn't the main conclusion also rather be "Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their predisaster prices"? Because the main conclusion as suggested in the video which is that retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood could further support the statement that this is why retailers raise prices. Although the final answer may or may not vary, but the main conclusion could. Can you guide here?
Thank you for this - really helps Some feedback (if you ever redo the video) is,.. 1. Please have the breakdown of the paragraph already written on the whiteboard when you zoom back out of the question. Handwriting was really hard to read and I had to rewind at times 2. *especially in the last question: Please structure your explanation - you had a lot of cases where you say "so it like" "and yea, so well" and you jump all over the place, randomly placing examples mid-explanation of what the statement (ex: 40:24-4:40) I immediately came to this after watching the main tutor in "GMAT NInja CR Ep1" and above 2 quirks made it very much harder to understand (flow was constanly broken due to poor excerpt handwriting and the "so like", "well and that is, but..." Maybe just me, but I had to rewind several times and the video took me over 80 minutes to grasp...
Just you. What is the point of writing the breakdown beforehand? We write it together so that we can understand how to write it during the actual test. Having it written beforehand completely defeats the purpose.
Hi, thank you for this video! A question - Isn't the second boldface, technically a support to the first boldface? Because in countries where there is no compensation for whiplash insurance, people have little incentive to report it & that helps us arrive to the claim that it's exactly why the reports in countries where whiplash is compensated, there is twice the reporting? Basically, people are reporting it because there is compensation, hence the reporting is twice in states where there is compensation because they have some incentive to report it (i.e. the compensation). So technically, the first boldface could be a conclusion and the second could be a support to it. I know it's not in the answer choices, but just curious.
I am really grateful for these sessions. I am exactly able to gauge where I might be going wrong. I had a question in the last question as I am always not able to recognise the boldface portion in the passages. Could you please help me out?
Hey thank you for the videos! One quick question / doubt: In the last question on automobile insurance, the second last statement is “Facts do not warrant conclusion that countries with high rates of report, half are spurious” -> so this statement is talking about countries where compensation is available Last statement “countries where compensation is not included, people don’t have incentive to report..”-> this talks about counties with no compensation You said that the last statement supports the previous one, which is the main conclusion, but basis my reading I thought those were talking about different types of countries and hence unrelated. So is that an inference you draw that, countries with compensation incentivises people to report and hence report are more & these are not spurious. Just wanted to be clear on the “their words or yours” from the first video - as the support form the last statement didn’t seem very apparent to me. Thank you again for your efforts! Really helpful!
In addition, doesn’t the first sentence of the argument get support from the last statement? First statement: “countries with compensation reports are 2x than countries where whiplash is not covered” Why..? Because… Last statement: “countries with no compensation, people are not incentivised, hence do not report..”
I got the right answer but while reading the argumane, the last line seemed to be the main conclusion and i thought 2nd last line was just a statement which supports the last line , though nothing is their to support the 2nd last line. As last line also starts with the word "clearly", it seemed that 2nd last line support last line not otherwise. Can you please comment on the same?
Hello sir, I struggle with finishing my verbal section in time, partly because I take up more time in RCs(especially 700+ RCs). I tend to work out CR questions in my head for that reason, and I miss out on important modifiers due to that reason. If I start taking notes, then I will have even lesser time for RC and SC. What should I do in that case? PS - got V38 in my first attempt, targeting V42 in my next.
Hi Arka! You definitely don't have to take notes on CR to get a good score, and it sounds like you've made decent progress already. I would think about maybe taking notes on a couple CR where you need to (e.g. you're really struggling to identify the heart of the passage), but otherwise, follow the same process outlined in the video in your head. I hope that helps!
Hello GMAT Ninja team, I'm still struggling to the last question. I couldn't get how D said "presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding" but still be recognized as a correct answer. Doesn't the second boldface sentence actually admit the fact that the first boldface sentence claims that "reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered."
Yes - that's correct! The second boldface sentence acknowledges the fact stated in the first boldface sentence (i.e. that "reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered."). However, the second boldface sentence also argues against a certain implication of this fact. Notice that the fact presented in the first boldface sentence could imply that half of all whiplash injuries in countries with higher rates of whiplash injuries are spurious. So that would be an implication of the first boldface sentence. But the author disagrees with this implication. More specifically, the second boldface statement provides an alternative explanation that rejects the implication that half of all whiplash injuries are spurious in certain countries. According to the author, it's not that certain countries have lots of spurious reports of whiplash injuries. Rather, other countries report too few whiplash injuries, because in countries where whiplash isn't compensated, there is little incentive to report such injuries. Overall, the second sentence is arguing against an implication of the first boldface sentence. For that reason, (D) is correct. I hope that helps!
IF you think logically, the first could also have been a supporting statement for the last fact(question 1) I disagree with my peers supporting the conclusion that we can't lose fair and just judges.
Sounds like you learned something from the easy first question that helped you in the following two! It also sounds like this was exactly the video you needed. Hopefully, you'll get these questions right from now on. Best of luck with your GMAT studies -- please keep us posted on how you get on!
Anyone trying to figure out if they understand the "Support/Conclusion" properly should do the bold-faced questions. If you get them right you definitely understand this concept. Cannot agree more with this video that this is where accuracy is lost. Every question I've gotten wrong is largely based on the fact that I didn't really understand what the passage was about.
Thank you for this great content!
Thank so much! I just did the mock exam and got only 460. It's quite sad but keeping learning from your channel has pumped up my motivation
stay strong sir! I think most of us all started from that horror range.. Charles and his team will get you where you ought to be in no time at all..
I Think this is the Most Important Video I've found on CR. My CR test scores have Improved dramatically and these tips are honestly fool proof for Boldface questions. Thankyou so much!
Very good process skills picked up today from this video for my CR strategy. Many thanks for that.
So glad to hear it -- thank you for checking out our videos!
I really liked the 3rd question. Even though I got it right, I didn't look at the argument the way you explained it. 👏
Same actually, I eliminated the other choices because they didnt feel correct but didnt realise the main conclusion is that half the injuries reported are spurious.
Super helpful approach for bold face questions. Thanks GMAT Ninja team!
I felt that the 3rd question was really head cracking. I got E as the answer. I don't see how SUB CONCLUSION (as you've mentioned) is not the MAIN CONCLUSION. And why main conclusion is the conclusion here!!!!
Good question!
To sort out this confusion, try asking yourself -- does the 3rd sentence support the 4th sentence? If so, the 4th sentence would be the main conclusion. Or does the 4th sentence support the 3rd sentence? If that's the case, then the 3rd sentence would be the main conclusion.
In this case, notice that the 4th sentence supports the 3rd sentence. In other words, the 4th sentence suggests that people FAIL to report whiplash injuries in countries without compensation, and this explains the discrepancy between the two types of countries. So it isn't the case that countries WITH compensation have lots of spurious claims.
Let me know if that helps!
Thanks for this, super helpful. Quick question - I mostly follow this approach but always end up choosing the wrong option (either stuck in the last 2 options or picked a totally different one). Can you suggest ways to tackle that?
Thanks in advance.
Hey, for the 1st question, I eliminated answers A and C on the following logic and wanted to run it by you to verify if you would agree with that approach:
A - essentially isn’t the conclusion since it isn’t the outcome that the letter is intended to get (that’s more evident in option B).
C - the writer does say that their fellow citizens, contradictory to himself/herself, are pro conviction. So this could be evidence that individuals who have interacted with the judge outside the courtroom are not fans, while the author is, and hence from the author’s POV, they are not objective assessors.
Voila, option B!
I’d be so grateful if you could respond :) Thanks so much in advance.
Hi Brenson, a quick question please for Automobile Insurance:
D. ..., the second is a claim presented to argue against derivating certain implication
If the implication D refers to is the 3rd sentence or the main conclusion, I do not understand why the second part serves to "argue against" the conclusion. I believe it "supports" the conclusion. That particular wording is what hinders me to choose D. Please kindly let me know your thoughts. Thanks
Answer choice (D) doesn't argue against the conclusion of the passage. It tells us that "the second [bold face portion] is a claim presented to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding." "That finding" is the information provided in the first bold face portion and "deriving certain implications" refers to the conclusion drawn by some commentators that "in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported claims are spurious."
The second bold face portion provides a claim that counters the implication that "half of the reported claims are spurious" in the countries with the highest reported whiplash cases. Instead, there is no incentive for people to report their whiplash injuries if they live in a country where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash. This means the discrepancy between the actual number of whiplash cases is less than the figures presented in the first boldface portion suggest, countering the claim that half of the reported whiplash injuries are spurious in countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash.
This means the second bold face portion does make a claim that argues "against deriving certain implications from" the finding presented in the first bold face portion. This is part of the reason why (D) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
Deriving, derivatives, derived, ok now I understand better, thanks a lot bro
Hi, I needed some advice on how to watch these videos. After answering the passage on my own, if I get the answer correctly do I still watch the whole explanation? Or should I move onto the next question in the passage? Regards
Good question!
If you feel you fully understood the question and why you got it right, you can probably skip the explanation. That being said, if you have any doubts about either your reasoning or the efficiency of your process, you may find the explanations helpful.
As Kevin Hart Says " This is something else" . Indeed the best method to find the conclusion of the passage. Using this approach makes BF questions puny . GMATNINJA- Will you attempt my GMAT exam ? :)
Hahaha, not sure that we could pull that off, but glad you found the approach helpful!
You’re the best!
In question 2, couldn't the main conclusion also rather be "Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their predisaster prices"? Because the main conclusion as suggested in the video which is that retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood could further support the statement that this is why retailers raise prices. Although the final answer may or may not vary, but the main conclusion could. Can you guide here?
Thank you for this - really helps
Some feedback (if you ever redo the video) is,..
1. Please have the breakdown of the paragraph already written on the whiteboard when you zoom back out of the question. Handwriting was really hard to read and I had to rewind at times
2. *especially in the last question: Please structure your explanation - you had a lot of cases where you say "so it like" "and yea, so well" and you jump all over the place, randomly placing examples mid-explanation of what the statement (ex: 40:24-4:40)
I immediately came to this after watching the main tutor in "GMAT NInja CR Ep1" and above 2 quirks made it very much harder to understand (flow was constanly broken due to poor excerpt handwriting and the "so like", "well and that is, but..."
Maybe just me, but I had to rewind several times and the video took me over 80 minutes to grasp...
Just you. What is the point of writing the breakdown beforehand? We write it together so that we can understand how to write it during the actual test. Having it written beforehand completely defeats the purpose.
Hi, thank you for this video! A question - Isn't the second boldface, technically a support to the first boldface? Because in countries where there is no compensation for whiplash insurance, people have little incentive to report it & that helps us arrive to the claim that it's exactly why the reports in countries where whiplash is compensated, there is twice the reporting?
Basically, people are reporting it because there is compensation, hence the reporting is twice in states where there is compensation because they have some incentive to report it (i.e. the compensation).
So technically, the first boldface could be a conclusion and the second could be a support to it. I know it's not in the answer choices, but just curious.
I am really grateful for these sessions. I am exactly able to gauge where I might be going wrong.
I had a question in the last question as I am always not able to recognise the boldface portion in the passages. Could you please help me out?
Hey thank you for the videos! One quick question / doubt:
In the last question on automobile insurance,
the second last statement is “Facts do not warrant conclusion that countries with high rates of report, half are spurious” -> so this statement is talking about countries where compensation is available
Last statement “countries where compensation is not included, people don’t have incentive to report..”-> this talks about counties with no compensation
You said that the last statement supports the previous one, which is the main conclusion, but basis my reading I thought those were talking about different types of countries and hence unrelated.
So is that an inference you draw that, countries with compensation incentivises people to report and hence report are more & these are not spurious.
Just wanted to be clear on the “their words or yours” from the first video - as the support form the last statement didn’t seem very apparent to me.
Thank you again for your efforts! Really helpful!
In addition, doesn’t the first sentence of the argument get support from the last statement?
First statement: “countries with compensation reports are 2x than countries where whiplash is not covered”
Why..? Because…
Last statement: “countries with no compensation, people are not incentivised, hence do not report..”
I got the right answer but while reading the argumane, the last line seemed to be the main conclusion and i thought 2nd last line was just a statement which supports the last line , though nothing is their to support the 2nd last line. As last line also starts with the word "clearly", it seemed that 2nd last line support last line not otherwise. Can you please comment on the same?
Hello sir, I struggle with finishing my verbal section in time, partly because I take up more time in RCs(especially 700+ RCs).
I tend to work out CR questions in my head for that reason, and I miss out on important modifiers due to that reason.
If I start taking notes, then I will have even lesser time for RC and SC.
What should I do in that case?
PS - got V38 in my first attempt, targeting V42 in my next.
Hi Arka! You definitely don't have to take notes on CR to get a good score, and it sounds like you've made decent progress already. I would think about maybe taking notes on a couple CR where you need to (e.g. you're really struggling to identify the heart of the passage), but otherwise, follow the same process outlined in the video in your head. I hope that helps!
How do I know what is part of the main passage and what is part of the background information. This is regarding the second question.
Hello GMAT Ninja team,
I'm still struggling to the last question. I couldn't get how D said "presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding" but still be recognized as a correct answer. Doesn't the second boldface sentence actually admit the fact that the first boldface sentence claims that "reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered."
Yes - that's correct! The second boldface sentence acknowledges the fact stated in the first boldface sentence (i.e. that "reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered."). However, the second boldface sentence also argues against a certain implication of this fact.
Notice that the fact presented in the first boldface sentence could imply that half of all whiplash injuries in countries with higher rates of whiplash injuries are spurious. So that would be an implication of the first boldface sentence. But the author disagrees with this implication.
More specifically, the second boldface statement provides an alternative explanation that rejects the implication that half of all whiplash injuries are spurious in certain countries. According to the author, it's not that certain countries have lots of spurious reports of whiplash injuries. Rather, other countries report too few whiplash injuries, because in countries where whiplash isn't compensated, there is little incentive to report such injuries.
Overall, the second sentence is arguing against an implication of the first boldface sentence. For that reason, (D) is correct.
I hope that helps!
wonderful session
Thank you - glad you enjoyed the video!
thanks!!!
IF you think logically, the first could also have been a supporting statement for the last fact(question 1) I disagree with my peers supporting the conclusion that we can't lose fair and just judges.
I've a test the day after tomorrow and I'm still stuck on 490 😢
How did it go?
2/3
w
x
😅😅
@@GMATNinjaTutoring y
Got the easy one wrong and the medium and hard right :(
Sounds like you learned something from the easy first question that helped you in the following two! It also sounds like this was exactly the video you needed. Hopefully, you'll get these questions right from now on. Best of luck with your GMAT studies -- please keep us posted on how you get on!
2/3