Earth Quakes - Passage 79 - 1000 RC

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

Earth Quakes - Passage 79 - 1000 RC

by Sharma_Gaurav » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:35 pm
In most earthquakes the Earth's crust cracks like porcelain. Stress builds up until a fracture forms at a depth of a few kilometers and the crust slips to relieve the stress. Some earthquakes, however, take place hundreds of kilometers down in the Earth's mantle, where high pressure makes rock so ductile that it flows instead of cracking, even under stress severe enough to deform it like putty. How can there be earthquakes at such depths?
That such deep events do occur has been accepted only since 1927, when the seismologist Kiyoo Wadati convincingly demonstrated their existence. Instead of comparing the arrival times of seismic waves at different locations, as earlier researchers had done. Wadati relied on a time difference between the arrival of primary (P) waves and the slower secondary (S) waves. Because P and S waves travel at different but fairly constant speeds, the interval between their arrivals increases in proportion to the distance from the earthquake focus, or rupture point.
For most earthquakes, Wadati discovered, the interval was quite short near the epicenter, the point on the surface where shaking is strongest. For a few events, however, the delay was long even at the epicenter. Wadati saw a similar pattern when he analyzed data on the intensity of shaking. Most earthquakes had a small area of intense shaking, which weakened rapidly with increasing distance from the epicenter, but others were characterized by a lower peak intensity, felt over a broader area. Both the P-S intervals and the intensity patterns suggested two kinds of earthquakes: the more common shallow events, in which the focus lay just under the epicenter, and deep events, with a focus several hundred kilometers down.
The question remained: how can such quakes occur, given that mantle rock at a depth of more than 50 kilometers is too ductile to store enough stress to fracture? Wadati's work suggested that deep events occur in areas (now called Wadati-Benioff zones) where one crustal plate is forced under another and descends into the mantle. The descending rock is substantially cooler than the surrounding mantle and hence is less ductile and much more liable to fracture.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) demonstrating why the methods of early seismologists were flawed
(B) arguing that deep events are poorly understood and deserve further study
(C) defending a revolutionary theory about the causes of earthquakes and methods of predicting them
(D) discussing evidence for the existence of deep events and the conditions that allow them to occur
(E) comparing the effects of shallow events with those of deep events

Please give reasoning to select your answer .
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:18 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by dreamv » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:52 am
IMO is D. Most earthquakes forms a few kilometers, but some earthquakes take place hundreds of kilometers down in the Earth's mantle. The first paragraph discuss about the evidence of earthquakes in deep events. The second paragraph discuss how this can occur.

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:34 pm

by dmaheshwari » Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:53 am
Gaurav - can you guide me to 1000 RC document ? I can not find it anywhere . pl post the link

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:25 pm
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:3 members

by MakeUrTimeCount » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:18 am
IMO: C
Para1: Tells about difference earthquakes and leaves an open question: "how depth is the deciding factor".
Para2: Tells about work of a seismologist. Introduce factors (P and S waves) to predict earthquake type.
Para3: Continue with the study. Adds 1 more deciding factor : intensity
Para4: Wrapping up. Answer the question asked in 1st para.

1. The passage is primarily concerned with
Now have a look at options:
(A) demonstrating why the methods of early seismologists were flawed
Irrelavant: Does not say anyhing about early seismologists.

(B) arguing that deep events are poorly understood and deserve further study
Irrevalant: No question has been left open.

(C) defending a revolutionary theory about the causes of earthquakes and methods of predicting them
Bang on: That's what the para is all about.

(D) discussing evidence for the existence of deep events and the conditions that allow them to occur
Narrow: It does not talks about deep events only.

(E) comparing the effects of shallow events with those of deep events
Irrelavant: Para does not compare effects, it just talks about the reasons of different earthquakes.

Hope it helps.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by ArunangsuSahu » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:53 am
(D)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by Sharma_Gaurav » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:35 am
@dmaheshwari, please PM me your mail id and i will send it as an attachment as I do not have the link to it.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by Sharma_Gaurav » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:44 am
Hi Guys many thanks for your answers. the OA for this question is C.
I also marked D as the answer as the passege ( moreover each and every para ) concentrate towards the direction of find out can deep events occur, and then how they occure and then their possible explanation.

Any experts? please can somebody throw more might on which option is better C or D and why?

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:55 am
Location: Russia

by kkunal1981 » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:07 am
Choice C is wrong on several counts.
C) defending a revolutionary theory about the causes of earthquakes and methods of predicting them

"methods of predicting them" - nothing about predicting earthquakes. Should be enough to eliminate this choice.
Even the first part is highly doubtful - what is being discussed in the passage is not a new cause but the existence of earthquakes at depths vs. only at surface. Both types of earthquakes have similar causes.
Also, extreme words like "revolutionary" should make you very suspicious.

Both parts of choice D are defendable.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:55 am
Location: Russia

by kkunal1981 » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:11 am
MakeUrTimeCount wrote:IMO: C
Para1: Tells about difference earthquakes and leaves an open question: "how depth is the deciding factor".
Para2: Tells about work of a seismologist. Introduce factors (P and S waves) to predict earthquake type.
Para3: Continue with the study. Adds 1 more deciding factor : intensity
Para4: Wrapping up. Answer the question asked in 1st para.
The summary of para 2 is misleading. Its about proving the existence of deep events. Predicting the type is not being discussed here.