Satellites Interfere - NEED EXPERT OPINION

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

Satellites Interfere - NEED EXPERT OPINION

by reply2spg » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:59 pm
Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.
This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.

A. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years
B. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive
C. there are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose
D. the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth
E. a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

OA Later
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:04 pm
Hey reply,

Good question - this one combines two "advanced applications" of standard CR questioning:

1) It asks you about a plan/strategy, and not a pure argument. On these, the objective of the plan is the conclusion:

Objective: to eliminate interference with telescope observations

2) It asks you to "logically complete the passage". In doing that, you need to read the portion of the passage immediately before the underline to see what type of question it is. Here, it says:

This proposal is ill-conceived because _____________

So it's Weaken question - you need to come up with an answer choice that shows that the plan is vulnerable to weakness.



Choice E is correct - it shows that the result of the explosion will actually create even more interference with certain telescope observations. Since the goal is to decrease interference, a plan that would actually increase it is certainly a weak plan.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.

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

by reply2spg » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:25 pm
Thanks Brian for your inputs. However, OA is D for this. I don't know the source of this question, but came through this question on BTG forum

https://www.beatthegmat.com/non-function ... 12194.html

I also selected E.

I am not at all convinced with the OA if it is D. Could you please have a look again to the question?

Thanks in advance.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:15 pm
Interesting...here's where I think they make the case for D (but also why I don't buy it entirely):

The goal is to "eliminate interference", and D would essentially say "you can't eliminate interference"- you just have to launch telescopes higher to avoid it. That would weaken it - if interference simply can't be eliminated, then really any plan that tries to do it is weak.

However, I think that misses the entire sentence, which is:

"to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites"

D says that you can't avoid debris, but it isn't entirely within the scope of the passage, which is those nonfunctioning satellites which could be removed via explosion. So my take is that "...from nonfunctioning satellites" in the objective makes D fall out of scope.

________________________________

The good news is that you won't see this question on the test...if it's an OG question then it's retired, and if it's an independent creation it's not on the test either. Justifying your thought process to yourself is much more important, so if you've learned from that process you're well equipped for the real thing!

If there is a flaw in the questioning, keep in mind that that's why the GMAT uses the unscored, experimental questions...the verbal questions that count should be infallible, but some of those that you encounter along the way may have ever-so-slight flaws...they're great learning experiences, though.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.

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

by reply2spg » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:46 pm
Thanks Brian
Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Interesting...here's where I think they make the case for D (but also why I don't buy it entirely):

The goal is to "eliminate interference", and D would essentially say "you can't eliminate interference"- you just have to launch telescopes higher to avoid it. That would weaken it - if interference simply can't be eliminated, then really any plan that tries to do it is weak.

However, I think that misses the entire sentence, which is:

"to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites"

D says that you can't avoid debris, but it isn't entirely within the scope of the passage, which is those nonfunctioning satellites which could be removed via explosion. So my take is that "...from nonfunctioning satellites" in the objective makes D fall out of scope.

________________________________

The good news is that you won't see this question on the test...if it's an OG question then it's retired, and if it's an independent creation it's not on the test either. Justifying your thought process to yourself is much more important, so if you've learned from that process you're well equipped for the real thing!

If there is a flaw in the questioning, keep in mind that that's why the GMAT uses the unscored, experimental questions...the verbal questions that count should be infallible, but some of those that you encounter along the way may have ever-so-slight flaws...they're great learning experiences, though.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:01 am
Location: India
Thanked: 2 times

by imhimanshu » Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:22 am
Its an OG question and OA is E indeed.
Thanks Brian for your explanation.
Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Interesting...here's where I think they make the case for D (but also why I don't buy it entirely):

The goal is to "eliminate interference", and D would essentially say "you can't eliminate interference"- you just have to launch telescopes higher to avoid it. That would weaken it - if interference simply can't be eliminated, then really any plan that tries to do it is weak.

However, I think that misses the entire sentence, which is:

"to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites"

D says that you can't avoid debris, but it isn't entirely within the scope of the passage, which is those nonfunctioning satellites which could be removed via explosion. So my take is that "...from nonfunctioning satellites" in the objective makes D fall out of scope.

________________________________

The good news is that you won't see this question on the test...if it's an OG question then it's retired, and if it's an independent creation it's not on the test either. Justifying your thought process to yourself is much more important, so if you've learned from that process you're well equipped for the real thing!

If there is a flaw in the questioning, keep in mind that that's why the GMAT uses the unscored, experimental questions...the verbal questions that count should be infallible, but some of those that you encounter along the way may have ever-so-slight flaws...they're great learning experiences, though.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:01 am
Location: India
Thanked: 2 times

by imhimanshu » Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:25 am
Thats why it is a bad idea to study from Forums.
It destroys your studies.
reply2spg wrote:Thanks Brian for your inputs. However, OA is D for this. I don't know the source of this question, but came through this question on BTG forum

https://www.beatthegmat.com/non-function ... 12194.html

I also selected E.

I am not at all convinced with the OA if it is D. Could you please have a look again to the question?

Thanks in advance.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:19 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by mv12 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:35 pm
E it is.
reply2spg wrote:Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.
This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.

A. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years
B. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive
C. there are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose
D. the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth
E. a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

OA Later