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

It is currently 21 Nov 2014, 08:33

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

Most geologists believe oil results from chemical

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 29

Most geologists believe oil results from chemical [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 13:40
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

43% (03:04) correct 57% (01:10) wrong based on 6 sessions
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical
transformations of hydrocarbons derived from
organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose,
instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action
on other complex hydrocarbons that are trapped
within the Earth. As is well known, the volume of
these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organ-
isms. Therefore, our oil reserves would be greater
than most geologists believe.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest
support to the argument above about our oil
reserves?

(A) Most geologists think optimistically about the
Earth's reserves of oil.

(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chem-
ical analyses on previously discovered oil
reserves.

(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at
many places where fossils are abundant.

(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could
have leaked down drill holes from surface
contaminants.

(E) Chemical transformations reduce the volume of
buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms
by roughly the same proportion as bacterial
action reduces the volume of other complex
hydrocarbons
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 410
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 50

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 15:56
Orange08 wrote:
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical
transformations of hydrocarbons derived from
organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose,
instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action
on other complex hydrocarbons that are trapped
within the Earth. As is well known, the volume of
these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organ-
isms. Therefore, our oil reserves would be greater
than most geologists believe.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest
support to the argument above about our oil
reserves?

(A) Most geologists think optimistically about the
Earth's reserves of oil.

(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chem-
ical analyses on previously discovered oil
reserves.

(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at
many places where fossils are abundant.

(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could
have leaked down drill holes from surface
contaminants.

(E) Chemical transformations reduce the volume of
buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms
by roughly the same proportion as bacterial
action reduces the volume of other complex
hydrocarbons


IMO - E.

Reason:

A, B and C - Irrelevant and out of scope.

D - Weakens.

E - If this option is true, then given the abundance of other complex hydrocarbons, the amount of oil reserves is going to exceed our initial estimates.
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 196
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 29

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 17:55
this is definitely E-

ABC are pretty weak and C even weakens the argument a bit.

D and E are the closest right answers.. chose E since it gives exact details of volume (which will be same by both ways)-- doesnot reduce the volume by chemical transformation => same or better oil output.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 12

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 18:24
This looks like a paradox question.
Geologists believe oil is .......from organisms buried under ancient seas.
Author belives oil is ...............hydrocarbons that are trapped within the Earth, and so there are more oil reserves than expected.

Point C actually resolves this paradox by providing a missing link. Where it says ancient seas are buried with in the earth at many places where fossils are abundant. So this shows that ancient seas are trapped with in earth and oil is actually coming from hydrocarbons of the organisms buried under seas.

IMO it is C.
What is OA?
_________________

+1Kudos, if this helps

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 25

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 19:18
At first I thought this question is wrong as none of the options look satisfactory.

Will wait for OE.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Mesmerized
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 181
Location: UAE, Dubai
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 12

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 30 Sep 2010, 00:28
I think it's E
correct if am wrong; the way that I understood the question is that the action of the bacteria is not yet proven(meaning it's a hypothesis. so we don't know if the action of the bacteria can actually results oil) In E, it says that the bacteria is capable of doing such action. Therefore I think E is strengthening the argument.
_________________

Nanquam Fractum

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 17

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2010, 00:12
OA PLSSS...???
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 29

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2010, 10:25
OA is E.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 5

Re: Geologists [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2010, 10:34
This one was tough because of the complex wording, but I think it's E.

Orange08 wrote:
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical
transformations of hydrocarbons derived from
organisms buried under ancient seas. Suppose,
instead, that oil actually results from bacterial action
on other complex hydrocarbons that are trapped
within the Earth. As is well known, the volume of
these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organ-
isms. Therefore, our oil reserves would be greater
than most geologists believe.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest
support to the argument above about our oil
reserves?

(A) Most geologists think optimistically about the
Earth's reserves of oil. Irrelevant, and would probably signify that oil reserves are FEWER than geologists believe, rather than GREATER

(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chem-
ical analyses on previously discovered oil
reserves. Irrelevant

(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at
many places where fossils are abundant. Irrelevant - fossils are never mention in the passage

(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could
have leaked down drill holes from surface
contaminants. Weakens the argument - the bacteria was caused by the digging for oil, which means the oil wasn't caused by the bacteria

(E) Chemical transformations reduce the volume of
buried hydrocarbons derived from organisms
by roughly the same proportion as bacterial
action reduces the volume of other complex
hydrocarbons This is good, because the passage states "As is well known, the volume of these hydrocarbons exceeds that of buried organ-
isms." Since the oil is produced by the hydrocarbons, and there are a lot more of them, we could assume that there would be more oil UNLESS the hydrocarbons are used up much more quickly than the other complex hydrocarbons. But they're used up just as quickly - so there's probably more oil than believed.
Re: Geologists   [#permalink] 01 Oct 2010, 10:34
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Most geologists believe oil results from chemical sher676 9 20 Aug 2009, 15:00
1 Most geologists believe oil results from chemical vishy007 8 11 Jul 2008, 09:36
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical Skewed 9 20 Nov 2007, 20:30
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical mm007 10 26 Dec 2006, 11:32
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical sushom101 7 18 Oct 2005, 16:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Most geologists believe oil results from chemical

  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®.