KarishmaB wrote:
Saupayan wrote:
GMATNinja KarishmaB
I read the explanations and they all make sense to me. However, I had initially rejected the OA (option A) for a wording-related reason, and I would love to have one of you explain why I amwrong.
My analysis went as follows.
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion: This part is correct. The conclusion isn't the main conclusion, but it is a conclusion nonetheless. No problems here.
the second gives a reason for questioning that support : The second gives a reason for questioning - all good so far - thatsupport ummm... is it really questioning the support? To me, the phrase "question that support" can be interpreted in 2 ways:
(i) question whether it is a support (as opposed to an opposition or a neutral comment), i.e. whether bank executives buying back shares actually supports the claim
...
I read the explanations and they all make sense to me. However, I had initially rejected the OA (option A) for a wording-related reason, and I would love to have one of you explain why I amwrong.
Quote:
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning thatsupport.
My analysis went as follows.
The first describes evidence that has been taken as supporting a conclusion: This part is correct. The conclusion isn't the main conclusion, but it is a conclusion nonetheless. No problems here.
the second gives a reason for questioning that support : The second gives a reason for questioning - all good so far - thatsupport ummm... is it really questioning the support? To me, the phrase "question that support" can be interpreted in 2 ways:
(i) question whether it is a support (as opposed to an opposition or a neutral comment), i.e. whether bank executives buying back shares actually supports the claim
...
Statistics : Posted by nikitathegreat • on 19 Aug 2009, 15:05 • Replies 67 • Views 126279
.jpg)
