|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its [#permalink]
 06 Jan 2008, 17:04
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 524
Schools: Harvard '11
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
62
[0], given: 28
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
06 Jan 2008, 17:35
I think the assumption is that the increase in salt level is constant throughout time. So, I think A is the answer. If the increase in level over the last 100 years in unusually high, then that invalidates the method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
06 Jan 2008, 18:15
msday86 wrote: I think the assumption is that the increase in salt level is constant throughout time. So, I think A is the answer. If the increase in level over the last 100 years in unusually high, then that invalidates the method. I agree with you that A is right. However, what do you think about E?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Founder
Status: On Vacation :-)
Affiliations: UA-1K, SPG-G, HH-D
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 10403
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Hospitality and Tourism)
Followers: 1369
Kudos [?]:
4197
[0], given: 3122
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
06 Jan 2008, 19:02
ttram wrote: msday86 wrote: I think the assumption is that the increase in salt level is constant throughout time. So, I think A is the answer. If the increase in level over the last 100 years in unusually high, then that invalidates the method. I agree with you that A is right. However, what do you think about E? After re-reading choice E several times (which I may not have done on the real GMAT), it seems to be irrelevant. The argument says to take the difference between salt levels today and 100 years ago and then divide the total salt level by the difference. Choice E says that there may be some biological activities using up the salts, which is fine since these biological activities have been active longer than 100 years, so they are a constant. Every 100 years these biological activities consumed the same amount of salt. Surprisingly, choice E can be ruled out mathematically.
_________________
Founder of GMAT Club
Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... | Want to know your GMAT Score? Try GMAT Score Estimator
Need GMAT Book Recommendations? Best GMAT Books
Co-author of the GMAT Club tests
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
06 Jan 2008, 19:16
bb wrote: ttram wrote: msday86 wrote: I think the assumption is that the increase in salt level is constant throughout time. So, I think A is the answer. If the increase in level over the last 100 years in unusually high, then that invalidates the method. I agree with you that A is right. However, what do you think about E? After re-reading choice E several times (which I may not have done on the real GMAT), it seems to be irrelevant. The argument says to take the difference between salt levels today and 100 years ago and then divide the total salt level by the difference. Choice E says that there may be some biological activities using up the salts, which is fine since these biological activities have been active longer than 100 years, so they are a constant. Every 100 years these biological activities consumed the same amount of salt. Surprisingly, choice E can be ruled out mathematically. Thanks. Now, I got it  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 42
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
06 Jan 2008, 20:05
ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. I think E is right. Evidence states that "The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans." Therefore, A is the paraphasing of the evidence. (Not the assumption of the author) The author's assumption is "There has been [no reduction] in salt level in the oceans" E is paraphasing this assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1946
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
168
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
06 Jan 2008, 21:45
alnasl wrote: ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. I think E is right. Evidence states that "The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans." Therefore, A is the paraphasing of the evidence. (Not the assumption of the author) The author's assumption is "There has been [no reduction] in salt level in the oceans" E is paraphasing this assumption. I think D it is The argument focuses on the resulting increase in salt levels[/b], [b]not the salt itself. So E is out if there is any other way to estimate accurately the maximum age of the ocean, the argument will be fallen. D defends the argument by saying that taking the resuling increase in salt levels and ...is only method to accurately estimate the maximum age of the ocean.
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 99
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
07 Jan 2008, 04:23
E it is...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
07 Jan 2008, 09:09
I go with D also.
Choice E mentions rivers, which is beyond the scope; moreover rivers have no salt, so again is beyond the scope.
The argument assumes that there is no other method to check the lifespan of the earth but my measuring it's salt levels. Choice D is the closest.
What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 77
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
08 Jan 2008, 04:52
I will go with E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 8
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
08 Jan 2008, 15:08
I think B is the right answer.
The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans.[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
09 Jan 2008, 12:33
ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. We can eliminate B, C and D after reading. The argument is talking about: We can guess the maximum Earth's age when we calculate dissolved salts from rivers to oceans with the premise is at the first time, the salt level of oceans is zero. B: Irrelevant because we do not discuss about salt level in rivers. It does not lead us to the conclusion. C: Irrelevant, too. D: Although it seems to be a right answer because it talks about a method. However, it is too general, and not assume anything. E: The first time, I think E is the best answer. However, it is a mistake. First, it is too specific. If none of the salts were used by biological activity, so, how about other activities? (such as physical activity, chemical activity...)? Second, it does not lead us to a conclusion. We cannot conclude that the method is accurate because of the premise E. A: It supports the premise: Premise: - At the first time, the salt level of oceans is zero. - We calculate the salt level of oceans in the past hundred years, and we can know the Earth's age. - In a process, the quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years. - Thus, we can convince that the result is believable. I hope that you guys can accept my explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 8
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
10 Jan 2008, 11:34
Sounds good to me. I vote for E. I voted for B initially because I mistakenly thought "At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels." was "At any given time, all the Earth's oceans have about the same salt levels."  What is the right answer? ttram wrote: ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. We can eliminate B, C and D after reading. The argument is talking about: We can guess the maximum Earth's age when we calculate dissolved salts from rivers to oceans with the premise is at the first time, the salt level of oceans is zero. B: Irrelevant because we do not discuss about salt level in rivers. It does not lead us to the conclusion. C: Irrelevant, too. D: Although it seems to be a right answer because it talks about a method. However, it is too general, and not assume anything. E: The first time, I think E is the best answer. However, it is a mistake. First, it is too specific. If none of the salts were used by biological activity, so, how about other activities? (such as physical activity, chemical activity...)? Second, it does not lead us to a conclusion. We cannot conclude that the method is accurate because of the premise E. A: It supports the premise: Premise: - At the first time, the salt level of oceans is zero. - We calculate the salt level of oceans in the past hundred years, and we can know the Earth's age. - In a process, the quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years. - Thus, we can convince that the result is believable. I hope that you guys can accept my explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
10 Jan 2008, 12:39
I will go with E here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 32
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
10 Jan 2008, 13:20
I am confused between B and E. If i have to choose i will go with E
whts the QA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
10 Jan 2008, 13:39
ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. Well argument assuming that all the salts come from rivers otherswise we will not be able to use the method defined in the argument. Try negating E and see if the result statements weaken the argument if it does we have our answer. Opposite of E: Some of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. argument does not stand and Opposite of E actually weakens the argument. E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
34
[0], given: 4
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
13 Jan 2008, 10:44
ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. dude, whats the OA here?
_________________
-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1108
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
80
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
13 Jan 2008, 10:48
ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. If the salts were partly used up by biological activity, then the level would be affected and the result would be inaccurate. E is the best choice
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
13 Jan 2008, 16:35
marcodonzelli wrote: ttram wrote: The Earth's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the ocean to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the Earth's oceans can be accurately estimate.
Which of the following is the assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the Earth’s oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years.
B. At any given time, all the Earth’s rivers have about the same salt levels.
C. There are salts that leach into the Earth’s oceans directly from the ocean floor.
D. There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the Earth’s oceans.
E. None of the salts carried into the Earth’s oceans by rivers are used up by biological activity in the oceans. If the salts were partly used up by biological activity, then the level would be affected and the result would be inaccurate. E is the best choice The OA is A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- Assumption [#permalink]
13 Jan 2008, 17:48
Argument does not depend on what is discussed in E as 'biological activity' has no relevance. Clearly A is our answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR- Assumption
[#permalink]
13 Jan 2008, 17:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
