Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 Oct 2014, 15:07

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Although fullerenes spherical molecules made entirely of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
Posts: 51
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Although fullerenes spherical molecules made entirely of [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2006, 02:01
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:11) wrong based on 2 sessions
Although fullerenes – spherical molecules made entirely of carbon – were first found in laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypothesis about the state of the Earth’s crust at the time this naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation
B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of small meteorite that collided with the spacecraft
C) The mineral shangite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed
D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystallite structure
E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
Posts: 51
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2006, 09:37
!!!!hey somebody please !!!!
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 532
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2006, 10:25
Chose E.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 716
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2006, 11:52
D weakens the argument
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 532
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2006, 12:41
This has been discussed in details here:
http://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=32648
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 10:04
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 10:27
karlfurt wrote:
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!


Karl - I completely agree with you. However believe me, I am an engineer myself and have studied chemistry in depth during school days and yet when I read this question, the first thing that struck me was this -

the argument says since fullerenes have been synthesized in the lab and hence the conditions under which they were synthesized can be used as a basis to test the conditions that existed at the time the fullerenes were formed in nature - HOWEVER, this must necessarily assume that THE FULLERENES IN NATURE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE LAB.

If they are, as D suggests then the argument is not valid. Also, D makes it clear (even though it introduces a new element CRYSTALLINE structure) that this Crystalline Structure was previously UNKNOWN.

Not sure if I have confused everyone even more.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 10:40
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!


Karl - I completely agree with you. However believe me, I am an engineer myself and have studied chemistry in depth during school days and yet when I read this question, the first thing that struck me was this -

the argument says since fullerenes have been synthesized in the lab and hence the conditions under which they were synthesized can be used as a basis to test the conditions that existed at the time the fullerenes were formed in nature - HOWEVER, this must necessarily assume that THE FULLERENES IN NATURE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE LAB.

If they are, as D suggests then the argument is not valid. Also, D makes it clear (even though it introduces a new element CRYSTALLINE structure) that this Crystalline Structure was previously UNKNOWN.

Not sure if I have confused everyone even more.


Does that mean that if we remove 'crystalline ', the argument is still undermined?

I spend lot of time to understand what the additional information 'Previously unknown' adds to the undermining of the argument. If it was unknown, it means that it is now known, maybe when the artificial fullerenes was discovered. That doesn't mean that the two structures are different.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 10:52
karlfurt wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!


Karl - I completely agree with you. However believe me, I am an engineer myself and have studied chemistry in depth during school days and yet when I read this question, the first thing that struck me was this -

the argument says since fullerenes have been synthesized in the lab and hence the conditions under which they were synthesized can be used as a basis to test the conditions that existed at the time the fullerenes were formed in nature - HOWEVER, this must necessarily assume that THE FULLERENES IN NATURE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE LAB.

If they are, as D suggests then the argument is not valid. Also, D makes it clear (even though it introduces a new element CRYSTALLINE structure) that this Crystalline Structure was previously UNKNOWN.

Not sure if I have confused everyone even more.


Does that mean that if we remove 'crystalline ', the argument is still undermined?

I spend lot of time to understand what the additional information 'Previously unknown' adds to the undermining of the argument. If it was unknown, it means that it is now known, maybe when the artificial fullerenes was discovered. That doesn't mean that the two structures are different.


OK, Let's put it this way.

Let's call the Fullerenes synthesized in the Lab as X. Since they are synthesized in the Lab we very well know their structure.

However, the fullerenes occurring in nature have a structure that was previously unknown. This does not suggest that NOW it is known, much less that it is the SAME structure as the fullerenes synthesized in the lab (X). Thus the conditions that determine the formation of X cannot be used for the formation of something other than X.

Also, another way to look at it is this - If today I find something that was previously not known, it means I still MAYor MAY not know anything about it yet. I may just have found it - but the details about IT may still be not known.

That's why the evidence "previously unknown" adds a lot of weight. Yes it confuses us to believe - ok it was previously unknown but now IT MAY be known. The trick is to realize that EVEN NOW it only MAY or MAY NOT be known.

The passage doesn't explicity say that the structure was previously unknown but NOW it is known. It almost GOADS you to make the assumption YOU WANT to make to find the answer - that it is NOW known.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 11:10
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!


Karl - I completely agree with you. However believe me, I am an engineer myself and have studied chemistry in depth during school days and yet when I read this question, the first thing that struck me was this -

the argument says since fullerenes have been synthesized in the lab and hence the conditions under which they were synthesized can be used as a basis to test the conditions that existed at the time the fullerenes were formed in nature - HOWEVER, this must necessarily assume that THE FULLERENES IN NATURE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE LAB.

If they are, as D suggests then the argument is not valid. Also, D makes it clear (even though it introduces a new element CRYSTALLINE structure) that this Crystalline Structure was previously UNKNOWN.

Not sure if I have confused everyone even more.


Does that mean that if we remove 'crystalline ', the argument is still undermined?

I spend lot of time to understand what the additional information 'Previously unknown' adds to the undermining of the argument. If it was unknown, it means that it is now known, maybe when the artificial fullerenes was discovered. That doesn't mean that the two structures are different.


OK, Let's put it this way.

Let's call the Fullerenes synthesized in the Lab as X. Since they are synthesized in the Lab we very well know their structure.

However, the fullerenes occurring in nature have a structure that was previously unknown. This does not suggest that NOW it is known, much less that it is the SAME structure as the fullerenes synthesized in the lab (X). Thus the conditions that determine the formation of X cannot be used for the formation of something other than X.

Also, another way to look at it is this - If today I find something that was previously not known, it means I still MAYor MAY not know anything about it yet. I may just have found it - but the details about IT may still be not known.

That's why the evidence "previously unknown" adds a lot of weight. Yes it confuses us to believe - ok it was previously unknown but now IT MAY be known. The trick is to realize that EVEN NOW it only MAY or MAY NOT be known.

The passage doesn't explicity say that the structure was previously unknown but NOW it is known. It almost GOADS you to make the assumption YOU WANT to make to find the answer - that it is NOW known.



I appreciate very much your thorough explanations. I understand now what the point is, still I have a point:

You say that the structure may or maybe not known. When I read D, I assume that it is known because D states that it is a crystalline structure!

Taking your example, let's say I find a previously unknown creature, for example a flying dog. So now I know there are dogs that can fly! Moreover, there are scientists who have created flying dogs in their lab!
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 11:22
karlfurt wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!


Karl - I completely agree with you. However believe me, I am an engineer myself and have studied chemistry in depth during school days and yet when I read this question, the first thing that struck me was this -

the argument says since fullerenes have been synthesized in the lab and hence the conditions under which they were synthesized can be used as a basis to test the conditions that existed at the time the fullerenes were formed in nature - HOWEVER, this must necessarily assume that THE FULLERENES IN NATURE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE LAB.

If they are, as D suggests then the argument is not valid. Also, D makes it clear (even though it introduces a new element CRYSTALLINE structure) that this Crystalline Structure was previously UNKNOWN.

Not sure if I have confused everyone even more.


Does that mean that if we remove 'crystalline ', the argument is still undermined?

I spend lot of time to understand what the additional information 'Previously unknown' adds to the undermining of the argument. If it was unknown, it means that it is now known, maybe when the artificial fullerenes was discovered. That doesn't mean that the two structures are different.


OK, Let's put it this way.

Let's call the Fullerenes synthesized in the Lab as X. Since they are synthesized in the Lab we very well know their structure.

However, the fullerenes occurring in nature have a structure that was previously unknown. This does not suggest that NOW it is known, much less that it is the SAME structure as the fullerenes synthesized in the lab (X). Thus the conditions that determine the formation of X cannot be used for the formation of something other than X.

Also, another way to look at it is this - If today I find something that was previously not known, it means I still MAYor MAY not know anything about it yet. I may just have found it - but the details about IT may still be not known.

That's why the evidence "previously unknown" adds a lot of weight. Yes it confuses us to believe - ok it was previously unknown but now IT MAY be known. The trick is to realize that EVEN NOW it only MAY or MAY NOT be known.

The passage doesn't explicity say that the structure was previously unknown but NOW it is known. It almost GOADS you to make the assumption YOU WANT to make to find the answer - that it is NOW known.



I appreciate very much your thorough explanations. I understand now what the point is, still I have a point:

You say that the structure may or maybe not known. When I read D, I assume that it is known because D states that it is a crystalline structure!

Taking your example, let's say I find a previously unknown creature, for example a flying dog. So now I know there are dogs that can fly! Moreover, there are scientists who have created flying dogs in their lab!


Karl - Not to cut too fine a point here - Your example did make me smile...

You see when you say a FLYING DOG, One obvious characteristic of a FLYING DOG is that it Flies and may in that respect be similar to the FLYING DOG I synthesized in the Lab. So that definitely leaves no room for doubt if FLYING were the only characteristic I was interested in. Full stop.

Now coming to Crystalline structure and the fact that it was UNKNOWN at the time we discovered it - WHEN you discovered the crystalline structure you only knew that it is crystalline - you don't know what it takes to synthesize it Unless you assume that it is the same as the one you've already synthesized. Since it is previously UNKNOWN (and assuming what i said earlier is true that IT MAY STILL NOT BE FULLY KNOWN EXCEPT THE EXTERNAL FEATURE OF IT BEING CRYSTALLINE ) therefore it's very likely to be different than the ONE you already know from your synthesis in the lab.

GMAT will never require you to have knowledge on the subject - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help if one knows that Both Diamond and Tungsten may have crystalline structures albeit with different PLANAR symmetries.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 20:07
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
karlfurt wrote:
It is D if the average GMAT testtaker knows that a crystalline structure is different from a spherical one!

It seems that it is required to be chimist to have high scores, or at least to have this CR right!


Karl - I completely agree with you. However believe me, I am an engineer myself and have studied chemistry in depth during school days and yet when I read this question, the first thing that struck me was this -

the argument says since fullerenes have been synthesized in the lab and hence the conditions under which they were synthesized can be used as a basis to test the conditions that existed at the time the fullerenes were formed in nature - HOWEVER, this must necessarily assume that THE FULLERENES IN NATURE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE LAB.

If they are, as D suggests then the argument is not valid. Also, D makes it clear (even though it introduces a new element CRYSTALLINE structure) that this Crystalline Structure was previously UNKNOWN.

Not sure if I have confused everyone even more.


Does that mean that if we remove 'crystalline ', the argument is still undermined?

I spend lot of time to understand what the additional information 'Previously unknown' adds to the undermining of the argument. If it was unknown, it means that it is now known, maybe when the artificial fullerenes was discovered. That doesn't mean that the two structures are different.


OK, Let's put it this way.

Let's call the Fullerenes synthesized in the Lab as X. Since they are synthesized in the Lab we very well know their structure.

However, the fullerenes occurring in nature have a structure that was previously unknown. This does not suggest that NOW it is known, much less that it is the SAME structure as the fullerenes synthesized in the lab (X). Thus the conditions that determine the formation of X cannot be used for the formation of something other than X.

Also, another way to look at it is this - If today I find something that was previously not known, it means I still MAYor MAY not know anything about it yet. I may just have found it - but the details about IT may still be not known.

That's why the evidence "previously unknown" adds a lot of weight. Yes it confuses us to believe - ok it was previously unknown but now IT MAY be known. The trick is to realize that EVEN NOW it only MAY or MAY NOT be known.

The passage doesn't explicity say that the structure was previously unknown but NOW it is known. It almost GOADS you to make the assumption YOU WANT to make to find the answer - that it is NOW known.



I appreciate very much your thorough explanations. I understand now what the point is, still I have a point:

You say that the structure may or maybe not known. When I read D, I assume that it is known because D states that it is a crystalline structure!

Taking your example, let's say I find a previously unknown creature, for example a flying dog. So now I know there are dogs that can fly! Moreover, there are scientists who have created flying dogs in their lab!


Karl - Not to cut too fine a point here - Your example did make me smile...

You see when you say a FLYING DOG, One obvious characteristic of a FLYING DOG is that it Flies and may in that respect be similar to the FLYING DOG I synthesized in the Lab. So that definitely leaves no room for doubt if FLYING were the only characteristic I was interested in. Full stop.

Now coming to Crystalline structure and the fact that it was UNKNOWN at the time we discovered it - WHEN you discovered the crystalline structure you only knew that it is crystalline - you don't know what it takes to synthesize it Unless you assume that it is the same as the one you've already synthesized. Since it is previously UNKNOWN (and assuming what i said earlier is true that IT MAY STILL NOT BE FULLY KNOWN EXCEPT THE EXTERNAL FEATURE OF IT BEING CRYSTALLINE ) therefore it's very likely to be different than the ONE you already know from your synthesis in the lab.

GMAT will never require you to have knowledge on the subject - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help if one knows that Both Diamond and Tungsten may have crystalline structures albeit with different PLANAR symmetries.


Ahh!!! MY crystallography classes are still haunting me!!!! :shock:
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 21:28
what is the answer please?

Among B and C, i prefer B.

B means that it could be from the meteorite, so the scientists can't study anything about earth's crust any more.


BTW, your avatar is too sexy for me to read the question. 8-)
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2006, 21:31
ok. got the answer D from the link.

i didn't study chemistry in English, so I can't be go to B school either! well done, GMAC. :?
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: fullerenes [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2011, 10:36
I hate this question.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Re: CR: fullerenes   [#permalink] 06 Jan 2011, 10:36
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of sondenso 13 05 Jun 2008, 19:20
2 Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of hedggie 6 12 Apr 2008, 10:32
Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of stevegt 4 17 Jul 2007, 16:42
Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of joemama142000 7 11 Dec 2005, 15:02
Although fullerenes- spherical molecule made entirely of christoph 7 18 Oct 2005, 09:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Although fullerenes spherical molecules made entirely of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.