Good CR question

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

Good CR question

by thestartupguy » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:59 am
Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermine the argument?

a) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation

b) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft

c) The mineral shungnite itself contains large amount of carbon, from which fullerenes apparently formed

d) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure

e) Shungite itself is only formed under distinctive conditions


OA after some explanations
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:24 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:38 am
IMO B

Because only the above provides alternative explanation.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:24 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:40 am
IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:24 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:40 am
IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:24 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:44 am
IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:24 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:44 am
IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by ArunangsuSahu » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:26 pm
(B)

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:06 am
Thanked: 1 times

by k.pankaj.r » Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:45 am
IMO B
as none the other arguments presented a case where the hypothesis state above could be weakened by proving that fullerenes do not exist naturally and can only be manufactured in lab

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:13 pm
(B) is not good because if F contain in meteorite, we can determine the condition of Earth' crust at that time :D.

IMO D