BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

life exists elsewhere

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Fri May 14, 2010 11:47 am
akhp77 wrote:Problem is in image

Image

OA: D


I got puzzled in this problem.
Prasad bhai,

Its a good CR .

Ultimate goal of Nasa : To collect Information about Europa to know more abt if life existed or not.

Competeing answers : D& E

Let us whip of E! how ??

Americans feel that NASA's step is logical for the gaing leap in the future. Ok agreed! But it never mentions even after landing how far we can collect the "data" we required about extra-terrestial life. It never speaks about whether scientist/humans can look europa in all dimensions . It never speaks of hidden difficulties astronauts "may face when collecting the data about "life " on solar system.

How to support D??
Yes, that new Telescope does all the wonders better than a Unmanned Scienece Mission.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Fri May 14, 2010 6:10 pm
The argument is saying that because the public is more interested in space travel, and because NASA is switching from exploring Europa to traveling to Mars, NASA is doing this because of the public interested.

The answer that would weaken the critics point of view would show that there was some relevant cause other than public opinion that caused NASA to scrap the Europa mission.

D answers this because why would NASA continue with a mission to send a unmanned vehicle to Europa when there is a telescope that can gather better information? They wouldn't they would scrap the mission and go with another. Thus, NASA did not scrap the Europa trip because of public opinion. They scrapped it because the mission became wasteful. D provides an alternate cause (this is a causality question) for NASA to scrap the Europa. This is the correct answer.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:08 am
Thanked: 3 times

by bupbebeo » Fri May 14, 2010 11:20 pm
akhp77 wrote:Problem is in image

Image

OA: D


I got puzzled in this problem.
Answer E: this supports argument of critics not against them because Americans thinks launching a shuttle to Mars is good and Nasa actually did. Clearly, as critics said, Nasa serve the interest of public. Therefore, E is incorrect.

Answer D: show another reason why Nasa scraped shuttle to Europe, not because of serving interest of public. D weakens the argument of critics. therefore it is correct.

hope that helps
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Sat May 15, 2010 12:08 am
Thanks
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 pm
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:660

by vivek1110 » Sat May 15, 2010 6:53 am
I don't get it, D says that Tokyo has designed a new telescope which will totally change the way we look at Europa, thereby making the unmanned trip to europa, pointless.

Read the argument, the argument states that "Critics feel that NASA's decision making process places a greater emphasis on public interest rather than scientific research"

The question is, effectively, a weaken the argument question.

Take a look at option B, If it were true that NASA's budget was decided by the congress depending on public interest in NASA's operations, wouldn't it mean that the cancellation was not down to NASA's decision making, but the directive of the congress. Wouldn't this weaken the concusion?
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 am
Thanked: 17 times

by this_time_i_will » Sat May 15, 2010 7:18 pm
vivek1110 wrote:I don't get it, D says that Tokyo has designed a new telescope which will totally change the way we look at Europa, thereby making the unmanned trip to europa, pointless.

Read the argument, the argument states that "Critics feel that NASA's decision making process places a greater emphasis on public interest rather than scientific research"

The question is, effectively, a weaken the argument question.

Take a look at option B, If it were true that NASA's budget was decided by the congress depending on public interest in NASA's operations, wouldn't it mean that the cancellation was not down to NASA's decision making, but the directive of the congress. Wouldn't this weaken the concusion?
congress decides NASA's budget, not affects its decision making process. So if seeing public interest the congress increases the budget, still NASA can decide whether to scrap the unmanned mission or not. (One common mistake in CR is to assume the 'obvious'. In real world it may be true that since congress allocates money to NASA, congress must have a bigger say in NASA decisions. But for CR we can not assume this 'obvious' unless stated in argument.)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1