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

Redeem

robot satellites

Expert replies
by scoobydooby » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:52 am
Robot satellites relay important communications and identify weather patterns. Because the satellites can be repaired only in orbit, astronauts are needed to repair them. Without repairs, the satellites would eventually malfunction. Therefore, space flights carrying astronauts must continue

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) Satellites falling from orbit because of malfunctions burn up in the atmosphere

(B) Although satellites are indispensable in the identification of weather patterns, weather forecasters also make some use of computer projections to identify weather patterns

(C) The government, responding to public pressure, has decided to cut the budget for space flights and put more money into social welfare programs

(D) Repair of satellites requires heavy equipment, which adds to the amount of fuel needed to lift a spaceship carrying astronauts into orbit

(E) Technical obsolescence of robot satellites makes repairing them more costly and less practical than sending new, improved satellites into orbit

[spoiler]OA: E[/spoiler]
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by rahulakacyrus » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:06 am
The objective of the question is to weaken the argument.

argument says that space flights carrying astronauts must continue.
to weaken we have to attack this...

A-We are not concerned with what happens if the satellites malfunction.Out Of Scope.
B-This statement says having other predication pattern are used along with robot satellite images.Out Of Scope.
C-No concern with goverments expenditure
D-Requirements for repair does not weaken the argument.
E-Correct. weakens the argument by saying that repairing them is more costly than sending new satellites to orbit!
Rahul Madan (Cyrus)
Join the discussion

by usualsuspect » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:19 am
IMO, E is the right answer..
Conclusion : space carrying astranauts should continue.
Evidence sited: for repairing robot satellites.
E weakens this evidence.
Aëtou gēras, korydou neotēs.
"An eagle's old age (is worth) a sparrow's youth".
Join the discussion

by dgr8onerip » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:29 am
IMO- E
it says that the space flights shud continue beacuse we must repair the satellites
but what if sending new ones is more feasible than repairing the malfunctioning ones
target score- anything above 700
preferably above 750
gmat prep 1- 710
powerprep 1- 730
barrons test 1- 760
kaplan test 1- 620 (lol)
kaplan test 2- 680
score 800 1-720
score 800 2- 730
score 800 3-750
score 800 4-720
score 800 5- 710
gmat prep 1 (retake)- 710
gmat prep 2- 730
gmat prep 2 (retake)- 720
actual gmat - 770 :)
Join the discussion

by dendude » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:29 am
I too agree with E.

B and C are out of scope.
Though A gives a reason why the satellites need not be repaired it has no bearing on the conclusion about the need for space flights to continue.
D, also does not add any reason to discontinue space flights. It just says that more fuel would be required and does not form a basis to reject the argument i.e space flights could still continue with more fule added.

E, clearly mentions that repairing the satellites is more costly than sending new satellites up.
Join the discussion

by scoobydooby » Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:13 am
thanks so much, great explanations people!

i fell for D :(
Join the discussion

by vanessa.m » Sat May 14, 2016 2:36 am
I feel it's E
Join the discussion