• EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the sho

This topic has 1 expert reply and 0 member replies
bounce87 Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
26 Mar 2016
Posted:
16 messages

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the sho

Post Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:02 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in
    the short term by identifying precursory phenomena
    (those that occur a few days before large quakes
    but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes
    (5)
    in seismic waves that had been detected prior to
    earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was
    offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known
    phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory:
    as stress builds, microfractures in rock close,
    (10)
    decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress
    continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and
    expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in,
    weakening the rock. According to this theory, such
    effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in
    (15)
    the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic
    waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.
    Researchers initially reported success in identifying
    these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses
    of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves
    (20)
    with unusual velocities were recorded before some
    earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
    that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
    tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about
    the magnitude of an impending quake and are
    (25)
    indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur
    without large earthquakes.
    In the 1980s, some researchers turned their
    efforts from short-term to long-term prediction.
    Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in
    (30)
    certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify
    patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which
    to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone
    sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined
    that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22
    (35)
    years near one site and concluded that there was a
    95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area
    by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time
    frame predicted, however.
    Evidence against the kind of regular
    (40)
    earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried
    to establish has come from a relatively new
    field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists
    have unearthed and dated geological features
    such as fault scarps that were caused by
    (45)
    earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have
    determined that the average interval between ten
    earthquakes that took place at one site along the
    San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was
    132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,
    (50)
    from 44 to 332 years.

    The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

    A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
    B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
    C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
    D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
    E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.

    The passage does not state anywhere that scientists were unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur, whereas I think that there is proof for A.
    Please explain!

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    Post Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:27 pm
    bounce87 wrote:
    In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in
    the short term by identifying precursory phenomena
    (those that occur a few days before large quakes
    but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes
    (5)
    in seismic waves that had been detected prior to
    earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was
    offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known
    phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory:
    as stress builds, microfractures in rock close,
    (10)
    decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress
    continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and
    expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in,
    weakening the rock. According to this theory, such
    effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in
    (15)
    the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic
    waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.
    Researchers initially reported success in identifying
    these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses
    of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves
    (20)
    with unusual velocities were recorded before some
    earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
    that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
    tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about
    the magnitude of an impending quake and are
    (25)
    indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur
    without large earthquakes.
    In the 1980s, some researchers turned their
    efforts from short-term to long-term prediction.
    Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in
    (30)
    certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify
    patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which
    to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone
    sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined
    that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22
    (35)
    years near one site and concluded that there was a
    95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area
    by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time
    frame predicted, however.
    Evidence against the kind of regular
    (40)
    earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried
    to establish has come from a relatively new
    field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists
    have unearthed and dated geological features
    such as fault scarps that were caused by
    (45)
    earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have
    determined that the average interval between ten
    earthquakes that took place at one site along the
    San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was
    132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,
    (50)
    from 44 to 332 years.

    The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

    A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
    B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
    C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
    D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
    E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.

    The passage does not state anywhere that scientists were unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur, whereas I think that there is proof for A.
    Please explain!
    Notice that we get some bad news about the efforts of the researchers in the very sentences alluded to in the question stem: Researchers initially reported success in identifying
    these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses
    of their data proved disheartening
    .


    Next we're told that while large earthquakes are often preceded by tremors, these tremors can occur without being followed by an earthquake, so the presence of a tremor can't tell researchers when an earthquake is going to happen - it's possible nothing will happen!

    Later, we're given the sad story of two researchers who predict there's a 95% probability that an earthquake will occur in a certain region in a certain time... and no earthquake occurs. (Of course, if you've absorbed the fundamentals of probability, this doesn't mean that they were wrong, necessarily - there'd be no way to verify that 95% number - but it surely isn't evidence that they were able to predict when or where an earthquake might occur.)

    So what is the author implying here? That researchers aren't too good at predicting when or where earthquakes are going to happen.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: bounce87
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 LUANDATO 127 topics
    2 lheiannie07 87 topics
    3 Roland2rule 79 topics
    4 AAPL 78 topics
    5 swerve 70 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description EconomistGMATTutor

    The Economist GMAT Tutor

    162 posts
    2 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    121 posts
    3 image description Jay@ManhattanReview

    Manhattan Review

    121 posts
    4 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    120 posts
    5 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    116 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts