Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of friction-generated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists' pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but "weaker" materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.
In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth's surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks' properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other
The passage is primarily concerned with
A. evaluating a method used to test a particular scientific hypothesis
B. discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding
C. examining the assumptions underlying a particular experiment
D. questioning the validity of a scientific finding
E. presenting evidence to support a recent scientific hypothesis
Official GMAT Prep RC Main Idea Passage
This topic has expert replies
- richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
- richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
I want experts to please chime in to help me to eliminate the answer choices.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected.richachampion wrote:Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of friction-generated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists' pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but "weaker" materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.
In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth's surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks' properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other
The passage is primarily concerned with
A. evaluating a method used to test a particular scientific hypothesis
B. discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding
C. examining the assumptions underlying a particular experiment
D. questioning the validity of a scientific finding
E. presenting evidence to support a recent scientific hypothesis
Some geologists wondered whether...
Byerlee tested whether...
Geologists therefore wondered whether...
The passage is primarily concerned with
B: discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding.
The red portion in the passage matches the red portion in the answer choice above.
The blue portions in the passage match the blue portion in the answer choice above.
The correct answer is B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
- DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
We get the gist of where this passage is going in the first sentence: Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expectedrichachampion wrote:Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of friction-generated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists' pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but "weaker" materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.
In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth's surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks' properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other
The passage is primarily concerned with
A. evaluating a method used to test a particular scientific hypothesis
B. discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding
C. examining the assumptions underlying a particular experiment
D. questioning the validity of a scientific finding
E. presenting evidence to support a recent scientific hypothesis
So we have this unexpected finding that contradicts prior expectations. (The "but" is a dead-giveaway here.) The remainder of the passage grapples with why such an anomalous finding may have resulted. Because clay tends to be cooler? Because of pockets of pressurized water?) The answer is B
GMAT/MBA Expert
- ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
I got a private request to respond to this one. Since I saw that 2 other experts had responded already, though, I took a different approach: I tried to see if I could guess the answer without reading the passage! Here's my analysis of the language alone:
A. evaluating a method used to test a particular scientific hypothesis
When we're conducting scientific tests, we're usually concerned with 2 things: 1) the findings/data, and 2) what conclusions can be drawn from them. The methods used to gather data or test hypotheses are usually secondary. Even if a passage said effectively "this was a useful method," it would be because it allowed us to draw certain inferences. That would be the main idea instead.
B. discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding
This sounds plausible - passages very often discuss explanations for findings. The word "unexpected" skews a bit negative, so that's giving me pause. The passage would have to be like "We found this surprising thing. Here are a few things that might explain it."
C. examining the assumptions underlying a particular experiment
Assumptions underlying a hypothesis, sure. But underlying the experiment itself? I'm not sure what that would even mean. They're testing the wrong thing, or using a bad method to test it? Perhaps, but as with A, the methods of testing are almost always less important than the conclusions drawn.
D. questioning the validity of a scientific finding
Passages will often present evidence that questions a theory or a conclusion. It's more rare to question a finding. We can usually assume that findings are objectively true. This seems unlikely.
E. presenting evidence to support a recent scientific hypothesis
This seems perfectly plausible. Lots of science passages are structured to do exactly this.
So without reading the passage, I'd say that E and B seem the most plausible / have the fewest red flags. And when I scroll down... it turns out that B was correct.
This kind of analysis won't always work, of course. I'm not recommending that you skip reading the passage altogether! But it's a really good exercise: are you focused on the specific language of the answer choices, rather than just thinking about the general content?
More on how to think about the provability of answer choices here: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog ... -a-lawyer/
(I have no idea why there's a picture of a frog!)
A. evaluating a method used to test a particular scientific hypothesis
When we're conducting scientific tests, we're usually concerned with 2 things: 1) the findings/data, and 2) what conclusions can be drawn from them. The methods used to gather data or test hypotheses are usually secondary. Even if a passage said effectively "this was a useful method," it would be because it allowed us to draw certain inferences. That would be the main idea instead.
B. discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding
This sounds plausible - passages very often discuss explanations for findings. The word "unexpected" skews a bit negative, so that's giving me pause. The passage would have to be like "We found this surprising thing. Here are a few things that might explain it."
C. examining the assumptions underlying a particular experiment
Assumptions underlying a hypothesis, sure. But underlying the experiment itself? I'm not sure what that would even mean. They're testing the wrong thing, or using a bad method to test it? Perhaps, but as with A, the methods of testing are almost always less important than the conclusions drawn.
D. questioning the validity of a scientific finding
Passages will often present evidence that questions a theory or a conclusion. It's more rare to question a finding. We can usually assume that findings are objectively true. This seems unlikely.
E. presenting evidence to support a recent scientific hypothesis
This seems perfectly plausible. Lots of science passages are structured to do exactly this.
So without reading the passage, I'd say that E and B seem the most plausible / have the fewest red flags. And when I scroll down... it turns out that B was correct.
This kind of analysis won't always work, of course. I'm not recommending that you skip reading the passage altogether! But it's a really good exercise: are you focused on the specific language of the answer choices, rather than just thinking about the general content?
More on how to think about the provability of answer choices here: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog ... -a-lawyer/
(I have no idea why there's a picture of a frog!)
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
- richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
Dear Experts
GMATGuruNY
DavidG@VeritasPrep and
ceilidh.erickson
I have posted one more question here RC Mian Idea Question.
Please help me with your analysis on this question also.
GMATGuruNY
DavidG@VeritasPrep and
ceilidh.erickson
I have posted one more question here RC Mian Idea Question.
Please help me with your analysis on this question also.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)