I am torn betwen A and E.
I will go with A since the passage says something like the info about photographs is accurately represented. If the reseacrhes (humans) cannot imagine a flying saucer as some man made human object then they have missed one or two which is good enough to say flying saucers exist but they are rare or something like that.
I may be off here...
Regards,
CR
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Flying saucers
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
I am between B and E. I think B is better cos it does say that 'a number' of pics are made up, so you cannot really dissapprove the phenomenon.
I am not too keen on A. ALthough it is not wrong but it is not a conclusion, its just something already mentioned in the passage.
I am not too keen on A. ALthough it is not wrong but it is not a conclusion, its just something already mentioned in the passage.
I choose E.
I don't think there's enough proof in the argument to support A. Also I'm guessing we are not restricted to only man-made objects in the argument. There is mention of earthly objects which could be mountain tops, trees etc. (I may be inferring too much over here)
E however talks about skeptical researchers bringing their skepticism to their work.
I have to believe that since the only group mentioned in the argument is the skeptical researchers, their conclusion can only be refuted by E. Since they are already convinced that the UFO's are fake they tend to conclude on that too.
I don't think there's enough proof in the argument to support A. Also I'm guessing we are not restricted to only man-made objects in the argument. There is mention of earthly objects which could be mountain tops, trees etc. (I may be inferring too much over here)
E however talks about skeptical researchers bringing their skepticism to their work.
I have to believe that since the only group mentioned in the argument is the skeptical researchers, their conclusion can only be refuted by E. Since they are already convinced that the UFO's are fake they tend to conclude on that too.
IMO B.
To go against the conclusion the best way is to point out the flaw in the reasoning that led to the conclusion.
B exactly does that.
Thanks
Raama
To go against the conclusion the best way is to point out the flaw in the reasoning that led to the conclusion.
B exactly does that.
Thanks
Raama
Hello Cramya,I am torn betwen A and E.
I will go with A since the passage says something like the info about photographs is accurately represented. If the reseacrhes (humans) cannot imagine a flying saucer as some man made human object then they have missed one or two which is good enough to say flying saucers exist but they are rare or something like that.
I may be off here...
Regards,
CR
Hope you are doing well.
Like you,I was also torn between A and E. But I will settle for E.
A) not all unidentified objects can be shown to be man- made. So what??
even if they are natural, they bring in the possibility that they can be phenomenon like thunderstorm or lightening which may cause illusion to human eye.
So A does not weaken the argument
E. Since the researchers are already biased, they tend to over look the possibility of flyings saucers as objects of extra-terrestrial beings
Karan
