|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 147
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 29
|
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical [#permalink]
 29 Sep 2010, 14:40
Question Stats:
33% (02:55) correct
66% (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
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 418
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
75
[0], given: 50
|
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.
_________________
 Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 198
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 29
|
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
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
39
[0], given: 12
|
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
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
56
[0], given: 25
|
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
Status: Mesmerized
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 183
Location: UAE, Dubai
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 12
|
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
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 128
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 17
|
OA PLSSS...???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 147
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 29
|
OA is E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 226
Location: Boston
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
54
[0], given: 5
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
