BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Fullerene!!

Expert replies
by gmat_perfect » Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:19 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 undermines 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 shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.

OA: D

Would any one paraphrase the passage?
Please explain every option.

Thanks.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by hardik.jadeja » Sun Jul 04, 2010 1:56 pm
The passage is basically trying to arrive at conclusion with respect to hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust in the past. The assumption here is that both laboratory grown fullerenes and naturally occurring fullerenes are similar and, since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, geologists can assume that similar conditions must be needed for naturally occurring fullerenes to grow. Based on this principle the passage suggests that geologists should evaluate their hypotheses.

One way to undermine this argument is to undermine the very basic assumption that both laboratory grown fullerenes and naturally occurring fullerenes are similar. If both laboratory grown fullerenes and naturally occurring fullerenes are different, then it possible that both require different conditions to grow and if this is true, then the principle on which the passage suggests the geologists should test the hypotheses doesn't seem helpful.

Option D does the same job I just explained above. D says that the naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure. So we can safely infer that both laboratory grown fullerenes and naturally grown fullerenes are different because if they were same, then geologists would have been aware of this unknown crystalline structure.

Hope that helps..
Join the discussion

by Testluv » Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:39 pm
Hi,

I discussed this question right here: https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-fu ... 47834.html

...Hardik's explanation was awesome.

@gmatperfect: it would benefit you if you used the search function prior to posting--that way you may encounter solutions to your problems, and you may not even have to post. It would also benefit BTG, helping us keep things organized around here!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Join the discussion

by sahilchaudhary » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:52 am
Very good explanation.
Thanks...:)
Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
https://www.sahilchaudhary007.blocked
Join the discussion

by Ota44 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:08 am
Everybody got really hyped about longevity experiments concerning C60 fullerene dispersed in olive oil but to be honest, main focus of today's practical application of this material is industrial area. Fullerenes are perfect for different kinds of enhancing coating, lubricants, electrical conductors etc. Its awesome that the industry is growing. For example check out this site. Looking forward to future medical development as well though.
Join the discussion