Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 10:08

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 371
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 18:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 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 Jupiterâ€™s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiterâ€™s outer atmosphere. After the fragmentsâ€™ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiterâ€™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 Jupiterâ€™s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomerâ€™s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

OA lateR~~
_________________

The only thing that matters is what you believe.

If you have any questions
New!
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2911
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 19:04
I will go with C.

Conclusion:
Some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiterâ€™s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

Evidence:
1.After the fragmentsâ€™ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.
2. Sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 576
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 19:06
B here.
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1415
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2006, 20:29
I was b/w B and C but the bottom line is that argument's conclusion focuses on the size of the fragments and both 'bothfacers' are a logical arguments to support the conclusion

so C this one is the toughest out of all recent ones posted
Intern
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 20
Location: Los Angles
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Astronomer (Boldface) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2006, 03:10
-- B
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 790
Location: BULGARIA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2006, 03:20
I choose E
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 371
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2006, 07:33
ps_dahiya wrote:
I will go with C.

Conclusion:
Some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiterâ€™s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

Evidence:
1.After the fragmentsâ€™ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.
2. Sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer

Thanks for neat explanation.

OA is C
_________________

The only thing that matters is what you believe.

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 00:27
Will go with C.

The astronomer provides these assertions to support his conclusion that some of the fragments must be large enough to penetrate the cloud layer and hence did not get burned up when the entered the atmosphere.
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 331
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 12:52
jaynayak wrote:
Will go with C.

The astronomer provides these assertions to support his conclusion that some of the fragments must be large enough to penetrate the cloud layer and hence did not get burned up when the entered the atmosphere.

good one.. Reached at C using POE.. I think first one is evidence rather than consideration.. But C is the best..
Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 37
Location: Boston
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Astronomer (Boldface) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 13:42
The conclusion here is that â€˜fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiterâ€™s outer atmosphere without being burned upâ€™. The two sentences in bold are considerations which support this conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 244
Location: Italy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

Re: CR : Astronomer (Boldface) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 00:23
A is out
B is out
D is out the second is not a conclusion rather support it
E is out the second is a circumstance to which astronomers try to provide explanation...

should be C
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Re: CR : Astronomer (Boldface)   [#permalink] 19 Jul 2006, 00:23
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman- Wachmann 3 4 12 Jul 2014, 10:50
7 Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 14 21 Dec 2012, 03:02
10 Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 10 20 Nov 2011, 20:07
7 Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 20 20 Jul 2011, 05:39
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its 9 07 Jul 2007, 16:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by