Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

In the paleontologist's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles ?

(A) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a judgement offered in spelling out that hypothesis.
(B) The first introduces the hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist; the second is a position that the paleontologist opposes.
(C) The first is an explanation challenged by the paleontologist; the second is an explanation proposed by the paleontologist
(D) The first is a judgement advanced in support of a conclusion reached by the paleontologist; the second is that conclusion
(E) The first is a generalization put forward by the paleontologist; the second presents certain exceptional cases in which that generalization does not hold good


I am sorry if this question has already been posted on the forum, but just not able to search for it. I am not sure if the search feature is not working or if I am not searching properly. I assume that to search, you type your search string in the text box in the top right corner (Google Custom Search).

OA - A.
Any thougts why ? How do you distinguish between judgement and explanation ?

First boldface portion is the main point put forward by the paleontologist & the second boldface portion is the judgement put forward by the paleontologist in support of the main point.

Only option A satisfies the above mentioned conditions.

hence IMO A.


Thanks!

first thing: in choice (e), you have "does not hold good" ...??
that must be a mistranscription.

--

WHENEVER you have this problem type, IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT YOU FIND THE CONCLUSION OF THE PASSAGE FIRST.
depending on how good you are at such things, you may want to make a diagram of the passage; if you're sufficiently good at locating conclusions, though, you may have no need to make a diagram.

the conclusion of this passage is "the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly".
if you don't see why, post back and we'll explain.

once you figure out that's the conclusion, there are only two answer choices left in play: (a) and (b), the only two choices that actually say that's the conclusion (the "hypothesis proposed by the paleontologist").
note that "a generalization" and "an explanation" are not going to represent conclusions. a "judgment" could be a conclusion, but not in the case of choice (d), because there it's followed immediately by "...in support of X".

between (a) and (b), you don't have to think that hard. choice (a) says that the second boldface is for the conclusion, while choice (b) says the second boldface is against the conclusion. since the former is true - the second boldface is the rationale behind the paleontologist's hypothesis - you go with (a).

always, always find the conclusion first.

The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however

why this is not the conclusion?

Paleontologist: About 2.8 million years ago, many species that lived near the ocean floor suffered substantial population declines. These declines coincided with the onset of an ice age. The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however; temperatures near the ocean floor would have changed very little. Nevertheless, the cold probably did cause the population declines, though indirectly. Many bottom-dwellers depended for food on plankton, small organisms that lived close to the surface and sank to the bottom when they died. Most probably, the plankton suffered a severe population decline as a result of sharply lower temperatures at the surface, depriving many bottom-dwellers of food.

I have same question as shobuj40 asked:
The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however

why this is not the conclusion?
The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however

why this is not the conclusion?

I think that The notion that cold killed those bottom-dwelling creatures outright is misguided, however
is conclusion,

the first boldface is opinion of Paleontologist,
the 2nd boldface explains and supports the opinion.

Thanks in advance.

Actually, I think you are both saying the same thing that Ron said: that first part is the conclusion. The second boldface, while sort of conclusion-like on its own, leads to the first boldface. Notice that this is perfectly in fitting with the wording of the correct answer choice (A), which does not use the word "conclusion" outright, but rather "hypothesis" and "judgement." While these words are both very "conclusion-like," they are not as explicit as conclusions. After all, the author has hedged a little bit with the word "probably" in both sections.

I was stuck between A and D , finally chose D .
What is wrong with choice D ?

(d) is backwards.

(d) states that #1 supports #2, when in fact the argument is written in such a way that #2 supports #1.