Supernova

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

Supernova

by gmatmachoman » Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:41 am
Commentator: Many people argue that the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere is harming humans by damaging the ozone layer, thus allowing increased amounts of ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth. But 300,000 years ago a supernova greatly damaged the ozone layer, with no significant effect on our earliest ancestors. Because the supernova's disruption was much greater than the estimated effect of chlorofluorocarbons today, there is no reason to
think that these chemicals in the atmosphere harm humans in this way.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the commentator's argument?

(A) Extraterrestrial influences on the ozone layer tend to occur less often than terrestrial ones.

(B) Natural events, such as the eruption of volcanoes, continue to damage the ozone layer today.

(C) Our earliest ancestors possessed genetic characteristics making them more resistant than we are to the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.

(D) The ozone layer regenerates at a slow rate, barring counteractive processes.

(E) Scientists have discovered that genetic changes occurred in our ancestors during the period in which the supernova affected Earth

[spoiler]LSAT CR OA C[/spoiler]
Last edited by gmatmachoman on Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:25 pm
Location: New Jersey
Thanked: 109 times
Followed by:79 members
GMAT Score:640

by money9111 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:41 am
i'm going to go with C because ABD do not address the ancestors, which is the basis oh the whole passage. so i had it down to c and e...
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

Me featured on Poets & Quants

Free Book for MBA Applicants


User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:45 am
IMO C

commentator’s argument is there is no reason to think that chemicals in the atmosphere harm humans in this way(by depleting ozone layers)

he supports his argument by providing evidence that a supernova greatly damaged the ozone layer, with no significant effect on our earliest ancestors.

he assumes that bcoz the ancestors were not effected by the dep of ozone layer , the claim that chemical depleting ozone layer will harm humans is wrong

but what if the ancestors non effective to dep of ozone layer is due to sme other reason like they having more resistant power , than the argument falls

which is shown by C

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:03 am
Commentator: Many people argue that the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere is harming humans by damaging the ozone layer, thus allowing increased amounts of ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth. But 300,000 years ago a supernova greatly damaged the ozone layer, with no significant effect on our earliest ancestors. Because the supernova's disruption was much greater than the estimated effect of chlorofluorocarbons today, there is no reason to think that these chemicals in the atmosphere harm humans in this way.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the commentator's argument?

Premise : Ozone layer is damaged by chlorofluorocarbons
Damaged ozone layer allows Increased amount of ultraviolet rays on earth
Increased amount of ultraviolet rays harms humans

Counter-Premise : 300,000 years ago ozone layer was greatly damaged by supernova with no significant harm
to the human ancestors.
Damage of ozone layer was much greater by supernova than damage of ozone layer
by chloroflurocarbons

Conclusion : Estimated Harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation (damaged ozone layer) to humans is not as great as
harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation caused to human ancestors

We can weaken the argument by attacking the conclusion.


(A) Extraterrestrial influences on the ozone layer tend to occur less often than terrestrial ones.
INCORRECT : Terrestrial/Extraterrestrial influences is irrelevant.

(B) Natural events, such as the eruption of volcanoes, continue to damage the ozone layer today.
INCORRECT : Even if natural events continue to damage the ozone layer today, it does not indicate if the damage is greater than that happened during the time of our earliest ancestors.

(C) Our earliest ancestors possessed genetic characteristics making them more resistant than we are to the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.
CORRECT : This clearly weakens the conclusion by showing that even when the cause occurs (ultraviolet radiation) the stated effect (great harm to our earliest ancestors) does not occur.


(D) The ozone layer regenerates at a slow rate, barring counteractive processes.
INCORRECT : Regeneration of ozone layer is out of scope

(E) Scientists have discovered that genetic changes occurred in our ancestors during the period in which the supernova affected Earth
INCORRECT : Genetic changes in our ancestors during supernova time is irrelevant.[/b]

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:25 pm
Location: New Jersey
Thanked: 109 times
Followed by:79 members
GMAT Score:640

by money9111 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:48 am
woo hoo!
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

Me featured on Poets & Quants

Free Book for MBA Applicants


Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:32 pm
A- We are talking about the effects that depletion of ozone had. So frequency matters a little.
B- In the argument, the author is talking about the harm done by chemicals, so other natural events are out of scope.
C- This option is making the thing clear that we are comparing apples to oranges. so definitely weakening.
D- Regeneration of the ozone has nothing to do with the effects of the damage.
E- this is trying to counter the premise that "There was no significant effect on our earliest ancestors". So not fit.

a definite C.

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

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:44 pm
I think C is the right answer here.