Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Boldface Type Questions

The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will surely contribute towards reestablishing the city as the central trading hub it used to be in the past. Though a certain part of the ancient wall will have to be removed as part of the project, the project will, if it meets the analysts' predictions, raise the GNP (Gross National Product) by over 10% over the first four years following its completion. The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.

In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice tries to distract you by describing the first boldface as a prediction. Even though the first boldface uses the future tense (will have to be removed), it is incorrect to define it as a prediction.

The argument describes the need to remove a part of the old city wall as a fact (i.e as something certain rather than uncertain). Since the removal of part of the wall is a given - a required condition for carrying out the project - it cannot be defined as a prediction. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.

Another reason to eliminate this answer choice is that the incorrectly defines the second boldface portion as evidence of the prediction that part of the wall will have to be removed. The second boldface's statement about the past not holding back the future is not evidence of anything - it is the argument's conclusion and bottom line.

Spot on.

[[snippet]]

The author's position can be identified in the conclusion: The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.  In other words: the ancient wall should be removed.

The first boldface is a consideration against this position because it describes the removal of the wall as a drawback: Though a certain part, etc.  Nobody is eager to see an ancient monumental relic of archeological importance torn down. This is why this statement weighs against the proposal to tear down the wall.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

While this answer choice defines the first boldface part correctly, it defines the second incorrectly. The second boldfaced portion is a position or a recommendation; it is not hard evidence.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

An inference is a conclusion based upon premises, whereas the need to remove of the wall for the project is factual - a premise in itself. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

While this answer choice defines the first boldface part correctly, it defines the second incorrectly. The second boldfaced portion does not discuss the future and therefore is not a prediction; it is a position or a recommendation which relies on the predictions in the argument.

The first is a prediction; the second is evidence in support of that prediction.
The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the argument advocates; the second is that position.
The first is evidence against the position of the speaker; the second is evidence in support of it.
The first is an inference that weighs against the main position that the argument advocates; the second is that position.
The first is evidence against the position of the speaker; the second is a prediction in support of it.