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

 It is currently 30 Aug 2016, 16:43

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 171

Kudos [?]: 1180 [1] , given: 62

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2012, 04:02
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

89% (02:56) correct 11% (02:06) wrong based on 234 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the
comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those
fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur
after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second
provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a
consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Source: Jamboree

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon

_________________
 Jamboree Discount Codes Math Revolution Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3346
Location: India
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1376

Kudos [?]: 10231 [0], given: 1854

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2012, 05:25
Marcab cant see the boldfaces man!
But I think I saw this question on MGMAT somewhere!
_________________
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 171

Kudos [?]: 1180 [0], given: 62

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2012, 07:06
Yeah, sorry for that.
Edited the post.
Infact I too have seen this question earlier, but the answer choices were different.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 442
Location: India
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 361 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 03:31
Marcab wrote:
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the
comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those
fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur
after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second
provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a
consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Source: Jamboree

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon

We can eliminate Choices B and C because the first boldface contains nothing that weighs against the conclusion of the argument. Choice D can be similarly eliminated because the second boldface says nothing against the conclusion but in fact is the conclusion. Choice A is a bit tricky. But if you look carefully look at the first boldface, it is not something which he is explaining. It is something he uses to explain something else which is the second boldface. So you are now left with Choice E which makes perfect sense.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 171

Kudos [?]: 1180 [0], given: 62

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 03:49
Hii Sri.
I will really appreciate if you explain the choice E. I reduced the options to A and E but thereafter I was confused. Moreover since you said that in A first boldface is not something which he is explaining, I could have also said that in E the first boldface is not a judgement.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 442
Location: India
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 361 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 03:52
Marcab wrote:
Hii Sri.
I will really appreciate if you explain the choice E. I reduced the options to A and E but thereafter I was confused. Moreover since you said that in A first boldface is not something which he is explaining, I could have also said that in E the first boldface is not a judgement.

Dear Marcab,

It is only the belief of the astronomers that is offered as a support. So I think it is ok to consider it as a judgement.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 442
Location: India
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 361 [2] , given: 14

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 08:32
2
KUDOS
Marcab wrote:
Hii Sri.
I will really appreciate if you explain the choice E. I reduced the options to A and E but thereafter I was confused. Moreover since you said that in A first boldface is not something which he is explaining, I could have also said that in E the first boldface is not a judgement.

To add to my explanation , a judgement is something which is subjective and is not objective. In this case since the support is based on what the astronomers think is correct and less on the actual facts, the support advanced is more a subjective one .
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

Current Student
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1095
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 476 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 10:36
Marcab wrote:
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the
comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those
fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur
after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second
provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a
consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Source: Jamboree

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon

HI Sri

It will be really helpful if you can break the argument into conclusion and premise and than present your explanation.....Because I still think that Second is not a conclusion it is a part of Explanation to the issues raised in first bold face.
BUt Marcab really good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Current Student
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1095
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 476 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 10:50
Marcab wrote:
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the
comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those
fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur
after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second
provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a
consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Source: Jamboree

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon

The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur<<<<<<<<<<<<<I think its a fact which is presented by the astronomer......to support the fact that the fragments crumbled to pieces by the effect of sulfur present in the atmosphere, and i dont think that breaking away of comets by the effect of sulfur is the conclusion of the argument its jsut a premise"

The second bole face is part of a sentence that begins with major Premise and not conclusion indicator ie Since Hence i do not think so it cannot be the conclusion. Moreover here the construction says Since X , Y and is a prediction i.e it is a claim and claim cannot be conclusion.

hence I stand by Option A!!!!!!!!!!!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 442
Location: India
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 361 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 16:26
Archit143 wrote:
Marcab wrote:
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the
comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those
fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur
after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up
the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second
provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a
consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Source: Jamboree

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon

HI Sri

It will be really helpful if you can break the argument into conclusion and premise and than present your explanation.....Because I still think that Second is not a conclusion it is a part of Explanation to the issues raised in first bold face.
BUt Marcab really good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Archit143,

For clarity I am separating the premise into parts. The second part is part of the first boldface and we can see it helps in arriving at the conclusion.

Premise 1 of the argument: comet fragments penetrated the cloud layer, means sulfur would seep in to Jupiter's outer atmosphere from the cloud layer below. We find traces of sulfur in the outer atmosphere but for that we need sulfur to be present in the cloud layer.

Premise 2 of the argument: Many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below the outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

The Conclusion of the argument: So, "it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up."

Kindly note that that the astronomers are interested in finding out the size of the fragments. So the second boldface is indeed the conclusion.

The argument does not explain why the cloud layer below the outer atmosphere contain sulfur. So choice A is wrong.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

Current Student
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1095
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 476 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2012, 19:45
Below Explanation is from Manhattan's link....explanation is by Ron...........Really straight fwd explained why second is the conclusion......................

first of all, no explanation is offered for the statement that the fragments didn't contain sulfur. that's just stated as an observation - it's not explained at all.

what is explained is that the fragments DID have sulfur after penetrating jupiter's atmosphere. however, no explanation is provided for why the fragments were devoid of sulfur in the first place.

second, it appears that you've got the basic structure of a passage backward. you don't use the conclusion to justify other statements - you use other statements to justify the conclusion!
if statement X justifies statement Y, then statement Y (not statement X) is the conclusion out of those two.
Director
Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 894
Followers: 83

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 57

Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2013, 12:19
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Intern
Status: Preparing...
Joined: 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 29
Location: United States
Sat: V
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT Date: 07-22-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 14

Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2013, 14:42
"but many astronomers believe ........-- this is clearly a judgement

"it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up" -- Clearly this is a conclusion based on the words used to express the intention.
hence E
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 153
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 40 [1] , given: 36

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2013, 14:57
1
KUDOS
Marcab wrote:
Yeah, sorry for that.
Edited the post.
Infact I too have seen this question earlier, but the answer choices were different.

Marcab,

Below was my reason to eliminate A

"The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation" -- This statement describes the first bold faced correctly as a circumstance for which explanation is offered. However, second bold faced is not part of that explanation, which explains first bold faced. In fact this is the conclusion.
_________________

MGMAT1 - 540 ( Trying to improve )

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9317
Followers: 807

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2015, 23:11
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its   [#permalink] 09 Aug 2015, 23:11
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 When astronomers observed the comet Steinman-Arnet 3 becoming 1,000 2 28 Sep 2015, 11:45
5 When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman- Wachmann 3 4 12 Jul 2014, 11:50
7 Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 10 20 Nov 2011, 21:07
5 Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 19 20 Jul 2011, 06:39
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 9 07 Jul 2007, 17:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by