Hi,

I recently took the Veritas full course over January and February and I'm scheduled to write the GMAT on March 26th. At this point, I've written about 10 practice CATs and I'm feeling pretty confident about my mastery of the material. That being said, I'm consistently getting boldface critical reasoning questions wrong.

We didn't really talk about this question type much in class and the books don't have any strategies or practice problems.

I was wondering if the rumored *new* books cover this question type in detail and whether it would be possible to get some of that info posted to this thread. Also, some practice problems would be really helpful (ie. a new Veritas Bonus Quiz dedicated to boldface CR problems). I really don't want to go out and spend cash on a Manhattan book just to get some more insight into this problem type.

Any help is greatly appreciated :)

Here a definition list that I found online that seems to be helpful (though not perfect). Posting this for others who come across this post in the future. I think understanding these terms with some precision is key to getting boldface CRs correct.

* Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

* Conclusion: An opinion/assertion/contention that the author wants to prove, using premises and assumptions. The strength of the conclusion/assertion depends on the validity of the premise.

* Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?

* Principle: Something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

* Fact: Something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

* Evidence: What is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

* Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

* Background: Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

* Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Source: http://outbeat-the-gmat.blogspot.com/20 ... terms.html

Hi sshah,

We do cover the Boldface questions at the beginning of the Critical Reasoning 2 lesson, which you may want to review in Veritas Prep on Demand or in the books. As a quick takeaway, you'll find that the Boldface questions are essentially Method of Reasoning questions - you're asked to analyze the argument with a description.

The definitions you provide below are apt, but to even simplify the process further:

-Premise, evidence, support are all essentially synonyms - they all correspond to pieces of information that are used to draw a conclusion

-Conclusion and inference are essentially synonyms - they are each ways to describe the decision that is being made (correctly or incorrectly) based on the evidence

From there, the added degree of difficulty tends to come from the test asking you to determine whether the conclusion/inference is necessarily true - in that way, it's somewhat of an Inference/Method hybrid question. Because of that, until there are more Boldface questions in circulation in bonus quizzes and perhaps in this thread, I'd advise you to focus on Method of Reasoning questions to better hone your skills at analyzing descriptions of arguments.