Overview: Bold Faced Questions | Verbal Reasoning for GMAT PDF Download

What are Bold Faced Questions?

Bold Face (BF) questions present a short argument or passage that contains one or more statements highlighted in bold. The question asks you to identify the role or function that each bolded statement plays within the structure of the argument.

What are Bolded Statements?

Bolded statements are individual sentences or clauses in an argument that perform specific rhetorical or logical functions. Typical roles include stating a fact or finding, offering a reason or premise, drawing an intermediate or main conclusion, presenting a counterargument, giving an example, or making an assumption. These roles may not appear in linear order: a passage can shift from evidence to opinion to counterevidence and back. Your task is to determine, for each bolded portion, how it contributes to the argument's overall reasoning.

How to Approach Bold Face Questions

Treat solving BF questions as two parallel tasks: (a) build the basic skills to recognise argument components, and (b) apply a reliable, repeatable strategy under test conditions. The following approach is recommended and tested in competitive verbal-reasoning practice.

1. Actively read the passage. Identify the main conclusion and the chain of reasoning that links premises to that conclusion. Notice transitions (for example, words such as nevertheless, however, therefore, because) since they often mark shifts in role.
2. Before looking at the answer choices, classify each boldfaced statement. Ask: Is it a fact or finding, a premise, an intermediate conclusion, the main conclusion, a counterargument, a concession, an explanation, an example, or an assertion of motive/intent? Write a short label for each bolded portion (for example, "premise," "author's objection," "supporting evidence").
3. Map the logical relations. For every bolded element, determine what it supports or what it opposes. Identify which statements are being used as reasons and which are being used as outcomes of those reasons.
4. Use the answer choices to match roles, not to re-evaluate facts. Eliminate options that invent new roles or swap the order of premise and conclusion. Prefer choices that correctly describe the role in the context of the entire argument.
5. Watch for common traps: choices that reverse the direction of support, choices that mistake an intermediate conclusion for the main conclusion, choices that call a simple factual report a value judgment, and choices that treat a concessive or hypothetical remark as the author's primary claim.

Common Role Definitions (quick reference)

• Finding / Fact: A reported observation or empirical result stated without evaluation.
• Premise / Evidence: A statement offered to support a conclusion.
• Intermediate conclusion: A conclusion drawn from some premises that itself serves as a premise for the main conclusion.
• Main conclusion: The principal claim the author wishes to establish.
• Counterargument / Objection: A statement that conflicts with or weakens another claim.
• Rebuttal / Justification: A statement that responds to a counterargument and defends the author's position.
• Concession: An admission that an opposing point has merit, often followed by a statement showing why the admission does not undermine the main conclusion.
• Assumption: An unstated proposition required for the argument's reasoning to hold.

Solved Example

Q1: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.
(C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
(D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.
(E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.

Argument Analysis

Read the passage actively and label statements.

• The opening sentence, "In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries..., reports ... are twice as frequent ..." is a reported finding. It states an empirical difference in reporting rates between two sets of countries.
• "Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified." This is a factual premise plus an intermediate claim: because there is no objective test, spurious reports cannot be identified easily.
• "Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that ... half of the reported cases are spurious." This sentence is the author's main claim: the author rejects the commentators' inference that half the reports are spurious.
• "Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered." This sentence provides the author's rebuttal/justification. It offers an alternative explanation for the difference in reporting rates: under-reporting in countries without compensation, not over-reporting in countries with compensation.

BF1: The first bold portion is a finding (a report of differing frequencies).
BF2: The second bold portion is the author's justification given to argue against the commentators' conclusion.

Answer Choice Analysis

• Option C: Claims the first is evidence used to support a conclusion for which further evidence is provided; and that the second is the main conclusion. This mislabels BF2. BF2 is not the main conclusion; it is a premise/rebuttal supporting the author's rejection of the commentators' conclusion. Eliminate C.
• Option D: Describes the first as a finding whose implications are at issue and the second as a claim presented to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding. This matches the passage: the reported finding motivates commentators' inference, and the author offers BF2 to argue that the inference is not warranted. Option D fits.
• Option E: Says the first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated and the second is evidence establishing its accuracy. The passage does not evaluate the accuracy of BF1 nor does BF2 aim to establish BF1's accuracy. Eliminate E.

So, we find that option D is the correct answer.

Second Example

Q2: Recent studies have shown that employees in open-plan offices are more likely to take sick leave than those in traditional cubicle-based offices. Moreover, it has been observed that in open-plan offices, there is a higher prevalence of airborne diseases. Critics argue that these findings clearly indicate that open-plan offices are detrimental to employee health. However, it is also noted that employees in open-plan offices report higher levels of job satisfaction and collaboration.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument disputes; the second is a counterexample that undermines the conclusion supported by the first.
(B) The first is evidence supporting a conclusion that the argument ultimately rejects; the second is a claim that forms the basis of the argument's main conclusion.
(C) The first is an observation that supports a conclusion that the argument questions; the second is an additional observation that provides an alternative explanation.
(D) The first is a finding that the argument considers as evidence for a certain conclusion; the second is evidence that supports an opposing conclusion.
(E) The first is a statement of fact used to support a conclusion; the second is a counterargument that the author uses to refute the conclusion drawn from the first.

Ans: (D)

Sol: The passage presents contrasting observations about open-plan offices. The first bolded portion, that there is a higher prevalence of airborne diseases in open-plan offices, functions as a finding supporting the critics' conclusion that open-plan offices harm employee health. The second bolded portion, that employees in such offices report higher job satisfaction and collaboration, supplies evidence for a contrasting or opposing conclusion - that open-plan offices have positive effects on employee well-being in other respects. Thus the two bolded parts provide evidence for competing conclusions: one negative and one positive. Option (D) correctly describes these roles.

Typical Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

• Mistaking an intermediate conclusion for the main conclusion: identify which statement the author is trying to establish as the final point.
• Confusing evidence with the author's view: authors often report findings without endorsing the implications others draw from them.
• Failing to note discourse markers: words like however, nevertheless, therefore, because, clearly often indicate a shift in role.
• Relying on surface features: avoid choosing an option that only repeats wording from the passage without matching functional role.

Practice Strategy

• First pass: read the entire passage to grasp the main point and the flow of reasoning.
• Second pass: label each bolded sentence (one- or two-word labels are enough).
• Third pass: eliminate answer choices that conflict with your labels or invent roles not present in the passage.
• Time management: spend proportionally more time on passages with multiple bolded statements; mapping roles early saves time in option evaluation.
• Review errors: when you get an item wrong, reconstruct the argument-identify the exact function you misread and why.

Summary

Bold Face questions require you to identify the logical role of highlighted sentences inside a passage. The clearest method is to read actively, label each bolded part (premise, conclusion, rebuttal, etc.), map how these parts relate, and then match your labels to the answer choices while avoiding common traps. Regular practice with careful annotation sharpens the skill and improves speed and accuracy.