peculiar columnar

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

peculiar columnar

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 2:34 am
Source: Kaplan Verbal Workbook

The cause of the peculiar columnar growth pattern displayed by junipers growing near burning underground veins of lignite coal has never been convincingly explained. Until recently, the accepted theory posited that the abundance of carbon monoxide in the local atmosphere caused the columnar growth. However, a new theory holds that the cause is the persistent heat present near these underground fires which, while not intense enough to inflame the trees, can nonetheless change their normal growth pattern.

The existence of which of the following would provide the strongest support for the new theory?

A. A columnar juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and an absence of carbon monoxide.
B. A normal juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and an absence of carbon monoxide.
C. A columnar juniper growing in an atmosphere of normal heat and a high concentration of carbon monoxide.
D. A normal juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and a high concentration of carbon monoxide.
E. A columnar juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and a high concentration of carbon monoxide.

OA: A

Please explain
Last edited by akhpad on Tue May 25, 2010 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Tue May 25, 2010 2:39 am
IMO A

Legendary Member
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:31 pm
Thanked: 97 times
Followed by:1 members

by liferocks » Tue May 25, 2010 2:44 am
I will go with B

Here the argument is columnar growth pattern displayed by junipers is result of persistent heat not of the abundance of carbon monoxide in the local atmosphere.

If ' A normal juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and an absence of carbon monoxide. ' shows similar columnar growth pattern this theory will be proved.Hence option B.
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll

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

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 3:40 am
paes wrote:IMO A
Such comment is not helpful.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Tue May 25, 2010 3:45 am
akhp77 wrote:
paes wrote:IMO A
Such comment is not helpful.
accepted theory says X caused Y. New theory says Z caused Y. How can we strengthen the stance of New theory??

St A brings in the fact that Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present.

X: Carbon Monoxide
Y: Columnar growth in Junipers
Z: Heat liberated by lignite coal

prasad bhai, i think that :"normal Juniper" is just a red herring/ distractor. U can disgard those words that comes out of scope !!

Plz reconnect my reasoning with CR bible 5 ways of strengthening. It will make sense!!

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

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 4:18 am
gmatmachoman wrote: accepted theory says X caused Y. New theory says Z caused Y. How can we strengthen the stance of New theory??

St A brings in the fact that Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present.

X: Carbon Monoxide
Y: Columnar growth in Junipers
Z: Heat liberated by lignite coal

prasad bhai, i think that :"normal Juniper" is just a red herring/ distractor. U can disgard those words that comes out of scope !!

Plz reconnect my reasoning with CR bible 5 ways of strengthening. It will make sense!!
Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present. => This is strengthening the new theory and weakening the old theory.

I believe that this is ok.

I was having difficulty to understand stimulus.

Thanks

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Tue May 25, 2010 4:32 am
akhp77 wrote:
gmatmachoman wrote: accepted theory says X caused Y. New theory says Z caused Y. How can we strengthen the stance of New theory??

St A brings in the fact that Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present.

X: Carbon Monoxide
Y: Columnar growth in Junipers
Z: Heat liberated by lignite coal

prasad bhai, i think that :"normal Juniper" is just a red herring/ distractor. U can disgard those words that comes out of scope !!

Plz reconnect my reasoning with CR bible 5 ways of strengthening. It will make sense!!
Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present. => This is strengthening the new theory and weakening the old theory.

I believe that this is ok.

I was having difficulty to understand stimulus.

Thanks
wow wow!! Thanked by Pheonix bhai & LR is something rewarding..hmm that makes sense!! but the worst part is i will be missing the grockit prize today becox of not knowing the timings!!

Thanks guys!

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Tue May 25, 2010 8:50 pm
akhp77 wrote:
paes wrote:IMO A
Such comment is not helpful.
agreed, I will take care.
Actually, that time OA was not there, So I was not willing to explain a doubtful answer.
The other point, it was looking straight forward to me.