Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Super confusing Astronomer question!

Expert replies
by Mr.Hollywood » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:37 pm
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. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many 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 presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

The answer I was given: E, but I feel like it's D

Help guys!!![/spoiler]
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by chris@magoosh » Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:49 pm
Great question :).

I was actually just reading about the comet crashing into Jupiter (the incident was part of a critical reading passage I was creating).

Anyhow, to the task at hand!

The first bolded sentence provides an insight that will give scientists a clue as to how large the fragments were. That is scientists posit that Jupiter's outer atmosphere contains sulfur = THE FIRST IS A JUDGMENT ADVANCED

If this judgment is true, scientists will know that the fragments must have been large enough to reach Jupiter's outer atmosphere This latter part is the conclusion. Therefore the judgment is ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSION.

(D) does not work because it says that, the second acknowledges a consideration that WEIGHS AGAINST the conclusion. The second is the conclusion, which states the rocks must have been big enough to pass through Jupiter's outer atmosphere.

Hope that helps :).
Join the discussion

by Mr.Hollywood » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:27 pm
chris@magoosh wrote:Great question :).

I was actually just reading about the comet crashing into Jupiter (the incident was part of a critical reading passage I was creating).

Anyhow, to the task at hand!

The first bolded sentence provides an insight that will give scientists a clue as to how large the fragments were. That is scientists posit that Jupiter's outer atmosphere contains sulfur = THE FIRST IS A JUDGMENT ADVANCED

If this judgment is true, scientists will know that the fragments must have been large enough to reach Jupiter's outer atmosphere This latter part is the conclusion. Therefore the judgment is ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSION.

(D) does not work because it says that, the second acknowledges a consideration that WEIGHS AGAINST the conclusion. The second is the conclusion, which states the rocks must have been big enough to pass through Jupiter's outer atmosphere.

Hope that helps :).
Great answer! That helps indeed!
Actually there's another version of the same passage where:
"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." and, " 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. " were Boldfaced, and asking:

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

The correct answer is C
What do you think of this one?
Thanks!
Join the discussion

by chris@magoosh » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:56 pm
Interesting, I haven't seen too many publishers use the same question, but mix it up a little. May I ask what the original source is?

Anyway, in this second version the bold-faced part is now the opening sentence, ""Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course..." This is not evidence, but is a consideration. However, I am not sure if the last bold-faced part is also a consideration. To illustrate, let's take apart the paragraph.

Comet broke into fragments before entering atmosphere. Sulfer was also found during fragments entry. Because fragments do not contain sulfur, scientists hypothesize that the sulfur came from Jupiter's cloud layer. If that is the case (AND HERE IS THE BIG CONCLUSION), then the rocks were big enough to get to Jupiter's cloud layer. So, I just can't see that being a consideration.

Hope that helps, and honestly I wouldn't worry too much about the semantics of the second question. That's why I asked what the original source was. I'm just not too convinced by the answer :).
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:03 am
Somehow i have become very good in the logical structure CRs. The answer is E.

I really did not get the answer as D. D is completely wrong. I was a bit confused between B and E.

E is right as the advanced judgement was in favor of the conclusion and not against.


Thank You...
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Join the discussion

by Mr.Hollywood » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:55 pm
[email protected] wrote:Somehow i have become very good in the logical structure CRs. The answer is E.

I really did not get the answer as D. D is completely wrong. I was a bit confused between B and E.

E is right as the advanced judgement was in favor of the conclusion and not against.


Thank You...
Thank you.

I actually considered E, everything looks good besides "weighs against" I can't find anything in the passage that mentioned or inferred that.
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:15 pm
Agree with Chris, 1st question is easy but 2nd question is awkward. For the mentioned correct answer where is the CONCLUSION in the argument that option talks about. Option says both are considerations to support conclusion but whole argument is bold faced & there is no conclusion.

Please provide source of 2nd ques., it seems someone was trying to practice making questions from original question (1st ques)
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion