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

It is currently 20 Oct 2014, 00:11

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: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 182
Followers: 1

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

Most geologists believe oil results from chemical [#permalink] New post 20 Nov 2007, 20:30
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 organisms. 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 chemical 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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 20 Nov 2007, 20:44
Skewed 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 organisms. 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. This statement goes against the argument
(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chemical analyses on previously discovered oil reserves. This statement also goes against the argument because this would mean that geologists are right.
(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at many places where fossils are abundant.Fossils are irrelevant
(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could have leaked down drill holes from surface contaminants.This too seems to go against the argument. It provides an alternate explanation for the presence of 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. If this is true this would mean that oil proportions would be greater and therefore supports the argument


I pick E
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2593
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 21 Nov 2007, 00:13
Skewed 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 organisms. 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 chemical 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.


E by POE.

A: no support
B: irrelevant
C: irrelevant fossils arent discussed
D: this kinda weakens the argument.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1593
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 2

 [#permalink] New post 21 Nov 2007, 05:09
yeah, E by POE and nothing else :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 10 Mar 2008, 21:32
any other reasoning?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 295
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 3

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 10 Mar 2008, 21:36
Only E by POE
All other option are either not relavant or weakens the argument.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1593
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 2

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 11 Mar 2008, 06:03
E by POE. Just went through the choices and eliminated them one by one, and ended up with E
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 171
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2008, 01:02
guys, is there a way other than POE to come to E, because all the answers are quite out of scope!

thanks
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 451
Location: Earth
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2008, 06:11
I believe E is obvious without POE.

both produce same oil through transformation while passage says, number of hydrocarbons acted by bacteria is more...so obviously oil estimates by geologists are low.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- Geologists [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2008, 03:32
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 organisms. 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
(B) Most geologists have performed accurate chemical analyses on previously discovered oil reserves. irrelevant
(C) Ancient seas are buried within the Earth at many places where fossils are abundant.irrelevant
(D) The only bacteria yet found in oil reserves could have leaked down drill holes from surface contaminants. weakens
(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.
only evidence that oil reserves / volume of oil is greater than expected
Re: CR- Geologists   [#permalink] 06 Apr 2008, 03:32
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Most geologists believe oil results from chemical kingb 9 02 Oct 2012, 07:42
Most geologists believe oil results from chemical Orange08 8 29 Sep 2010, 13:40
2 Most geologists believe oil results from chemical sher676 9 20 Aug 2009, 15:00
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®.