Meteorites

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

Meteorites

by gmatmachoman » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:26 am
Impact craters caused by meteorites smashing into Earth have been found all around the globe, but they have been found in the greatest density in geologically stable regions. This relatively greater abundance of securely identified crater in geologically stable regions must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth's surface in the course of Earth's geological history.
(E) The Earth's geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:09 pm
gmatmachoman wrote:Impact craters caused by meteorites smashing into Earth have been found all around the globe, but they have been found in the greatest density in geologically stable regions. This relatively greater abundance of securely identified crater in geologically stable regions must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth's surface in the course of Earth's geological history.
(E) The Earth's geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.
My stake on D


The simple reason being - if meteorite strike evenly over earth's surface, there will be no denser and scarce regions

But since it is given that they are found more in stable regions, there must be some cause to it. The cause is "destructive geophysical processes in those regions".

All the other options didn't seem to be concerned with the point of reasoning.
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:51 am

by TJ_Believes_Yes_U_Can » Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:17 pm
Why not E ; E supports the premise also D restates the premise

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm
TJ_Believes_Yes_U_Can wrote:Why not E ; E supports the premise also D restates the premise
We are not discussing what geologists have studied in this question.

Also, if geologists study stable regions more - that does not weaken the possibility that meteorites may fall more in some regions and less in some regions and weaken the conclusion.

The only thing that would strengthen conclusion if we prove that they fall fairly evenly in all region. That's what I think.

I may be wrong... It's just my IMO :mrgreen:
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:41 pm
hrishi19884 wrote:
TJ_Believes_Yes_U_Can wrote:Why not E ; E supports the premise also D restates the premise
We are not discussing what geologists have studied in this question.

Also, if geologists study stable regions more - that does not weaken the possibility that meteorites may fall more in some regions and less in some regions and weaken the conclusion.

The only thing that would strengthen conclusion if we prove that they fall fairly evenly in all region. That's what I think.

I may be wrong... It's just my IMO :mrgreen:
Be confident Hrishi.. U r correct..

OA :D

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:08 pm
gmatmachoman wrote:
hrishi19884 wrote:
TJ_Believes_Yes_U_Can wrote:Why not E ; E supports the premise also D restates the premise
We are not discussing what geologists have studied in this question.

Also, if geologists study stable regions more - that does not weaken the possibility that meteorites may fall more in some regions and less in some regions and weaken the conclusion.

The only thing that would strengthen conclusion if we prove that they fall fairly evenly in all region. That's what I think.

I may be wrong... It's just my IMO :mrgreen:
Be confident Hrishi.. U r correct..

OA :D
thanks brother....I will be next time :oops:
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:57 pm
I believe the answer should be E