Shoemaker

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
Thanked: 4 times

Shoemaker

by jainrahul1985 » Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:17 am
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with
Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. After the fragments' entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides
evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the
conclusion of the argument.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the
second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the
explanation provided by the astronomer.[spoiler]

Confused b/w B and C please suggest[/spoiler]
Last edited by jainrahul1985 on Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:36 am
Where are the bold face statements?
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
Thanked: 4 times

by jainrahul1985 » Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:49 am
i am very sorry . i have highlighted the bold statements

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by debmalya_dutta » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:20 pm
My pick is C what's the OA.. I took around 3 mins to answer this though.. :(

Boldface 1:
After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.

Boldface 2 :
sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,

Conclusion :
it is likely that some of the fragments(of the comet) were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up

So, the author of this statement doesnt seek to prove the the first boldface to be true... He is using the observation to launch his argument to reach the conclusion . So boldface 1 is surely not a claim which the author is trying to prove to be correct..

So this rules out option A and B....

C- Look at the over-all argument ... The author is trying to prove that the comet fragments entered jupiter's atmosphere with being burned up... So he presents the observation that sulphur traces were found ( you can call it an observation) and then he uses this observation to further his hypothesis and makes another derivation/observation based on this - "sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer"

D: the second boldface is not the conclusion of the argument ..hence ruled out

E. the second boldface doesnt oppose what the astronomer is trying to establish ..hence this option is ruled out
@Deb

Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:45 pm
jainrahul1985 wrote:Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with
Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. After the fragments' entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides
evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the
conclusion of the argument.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the
second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the
explanation provided by the astronomer.[spoiler]
the second boldfaced sentence is not a consideration that against the truth of any claim, it
is also not a evidence, thus Eliminate AB, and also easy to eliminate D, E
C left
whats the answer?

Confused b/w B and C please suggest[/spoiler]

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

by ankurmit » Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:58 pm
I will go with C

Both the bold face parts of stems provide evidence in support of conclusion.
--------
Ankur mittal

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:56 am
Thanked: 4 times

by abhigang » Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:12 am
jainrahul1985 wrote:Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with
Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. After the fragments' entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides
evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the
conclusion of the argument.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the
second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the
explanation provided by the astronomer.[spoiler]

Confused b/w B and C please suggest[/spoiler]
IMO E.

Coz the first boldface is the study from the analyses. Hence it cannot be a claim. Thus AB are out. C is out because it says the first boldface is a consideration. This is not a consideration but a fact. Hence C is out.

I could not get the idea of D properly but checking the second boldface role in D, I clearly eliminated it.

Hence, E.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:00 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:760

by scorpionz » Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:28 am
jainrahul1985 wrote:Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with
Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. After the fragments' entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second
acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides
evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the
conclusion of the argument.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the
second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an
explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the
explanation provided by the astronomer.[spoiler]

Confused b/w B and C please suggest[/spoiler]
IMO: C

A - not a claim that the astronomer is trying to prove
B - same as A
C - Both are considerations which support the main conclusion of the argument which is "some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up"
D - the second bold faced statement is not the conclusion
E - the second bold faced statement is not contradicting anything in the argument.

OA Plz..??

Cheers!!