Astronomer's Argument

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:07 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:14 members
GMAT Score:750

Astronomer's Argument

by CappyAA » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:29 pm
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.





Thanks,
Cappy

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:11 pm
IMO C

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:07 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:14 members
GMAT Score:750

by CappyAA » Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 am
That's what I put too - but according to the GMAT Prep CAT test, the answer is E. The test doesn't have answer explanations though, so I'm wondering why. Anyone have any explanation?

Thanks,
Cappy

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:50 am
Hi Cappy,

This is a gmat prep question right ? Even i got this once in my test and it was the first question in my verbal . I hated it and i got it wrong..anyway i think i can explain why E is the answer now ..

Passage says :

1) Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere

2) In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.

I think these 2 sentences giv us an idea why the answer should be E.
The astronomers are tring 2 get a answer for the phenimenon described above.

And eventually they do ... They conculde saying that fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

Is it clear now ??

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:07 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:14 members
GMAT Score:750

by CappyAA » Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:57 am
Thanks Vignesh! Yes, this is a GMAT Prep CAT question. It was my first question too and I got it wrong as well.

I think looking back, I still don't understand the author's reasoning, but I can understand the structure of the sentences. The author's use of 'almost certainly' in the first bolded part suggests a judgement, which would fit in with E. I think it's obvious that the last sentence is the conclusion.

I'm still sketchy as to the reasoning though.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by NSNguyen » Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:34 pm
I am in between D and E
However, I prefer E ,
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org

Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:27 pm
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

The Answer should be E...
Reason : the conclusion of the passage is that some fragments were large enough to penetrate the outer layer...

First BOLD Face : "The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur" if we see its relation to conclusion we can see B,C are wrong...

Second Bold face : "it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up".. Its the conclusion..

If we put this choice to check A,D,E... E certainly scores over A and B...

Hope this helps...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Thu May 12, 2016 12:36 pm
Cannot decide between A and E. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:22 pm
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:720

by mack13 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:49 am
how to eliminate A ?
Please take a moment to hit Thanks if you like my post. :)

User avatar
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

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:30 am
CappyAA wrote:Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
Astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere in hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size.
BF2 = what astronomers CONCLUDED about the fragments' size:
It is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
The correct answer must indicate that BF2 is the CONCLUSION of the argument.
Eliminate A, C and D.

BF1: The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur.
Since the fragments almost certainly contained no sulfur, astronomers offer the following explanation for the sulfur found in Jupiter's outer atmosphere:
Sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmospher layer.
Thus, BF1 SUPPORTS the conclusion that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
Eliminate B.

The correct answer is E.
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

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:15 pm

by Phoenix7 » Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:52 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
CappyAA wrote:Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
Astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere in hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size.
BF2 = what astronomers CONCLUDED about the fragments' size:
It is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
The correct answer must indicate that BF2 is the CONCLUSION of the argument.
Eliminate A, C and D.

BF1: The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur.
Since the fragments almost certainly contained no sulfur, astronomers offer the following explanation for the sulfur found in Jupiter's outer atmosphere:
Sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmospher layer.
Thus, BF1 SUPPORTS the conclusion that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
Eliminate B.

The correct answer is E.
Hi Mitch, thanks for the explanation. Through POE, the answer is obviously E. But, if you analyse what E says, it's not entirely accurate which creates a doubt when deciding under time pressure. The 1st BF (The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur) does not seem to support the conclusion "it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up". However, the 1st BF would support this conclusion if it also included "Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer". E would also be correct if it said "The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is PART OF that conclusion". Perhaps it's better to simply use the POE and get to the correct option without much brain-racking.