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

It is currently 29 Aug 2016, 06:06
GMAT Club Tests

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

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Please select your answer

  • 18% [5]
  • 0% [0]
  • 74% [20]
  • 3% [1]
  • 3% [1]
You may select 1 option
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 50 [2] , given: 9

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 12:18
2
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (03:16) correct 43% (02:08) wrong based on 268 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by doe007 on 14 May 2013, 21:49, edited 2 times in total.
Topic name updated
Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 3279
Location: India
City: Pune
GPA: 3.4
WE: Business Development (Manufacturing)
Followers: 340

Kudos [?]: 2499 [0], given: 1853

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 13:46
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, thatevery planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. Andrelatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.

C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.

D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.

E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

please do explain your answer..



Dear Anish,

An request to you is, do post your questions along with OA's

In your question, Answer should be between A and C (A is my take)

Premise 1 :- Humans have basic needs to survive - Food, Air, Water
Premise 2 :- Relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells
Conclusion :- human beings do not need to live on planets.

To weaken the conclusion we need to consider other side of the story. Apart from Food, water, and Air, is there any other condition that forcing humans to stay on the planet?

Counter Premise :- Planet takes considerable energy from gravity wells to lower People and Material to the bottom in good working condition.

Above Counter premise siting that condition. So The choice that would consistent with above premise would weaken the conclusion.

A) This is true and consistent with counter premise.

B) Shell Game Answer. Comparison is not between Earth and Asteroid Belts. It is between Planets (that are under gravity wells) and Asteroid belts (not under gravity wells).

C) Contender

D) Irrelevant

E) Irrelevant

Between A and C, C makes a general statement about limitations of Humans for living beyond gravitational fields, Whereas A provides a specific limitation i.e. Acceleration would be the factor prohibit Humans live on the Asteroid Belts

So i would go with A

Regards,

Narenn
_________________

MBA Rankings | Admission Deadlines | BSchool Adcom Chats | Applicant Status Tracker - Real Time Updates

Executive MBA | Part Time MBA | MBA Applicant Blogs | MBA Student Blogs

Impact of GMAT Score on Your Admission Chances
Special Scholarships and Fellowships Awarded at Top BSchools
Best Admissions Consulting Companies
Business School Reviews - Real and Verified
Global Map of Business Schools
Admission Trends at Top Business Schools Over Last 5 Years!!

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 50 [1] , given: 9

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 21:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
answer-C

Reason

It is important to first identify the conclusion drawn by the passage. Here, the author concludes that human beings may not need to live on planets. Thus, an answer that challenges this conclusion or an argument on which it is based would weaken the author’s finding. (C) is the credited response since it directly attacks the author’s conclusion by establishing that humans may need to live in an environment with strong gravitational fields (such as planets).

(A) is incorrect.

(A) is incorrect because it does not necessarily challenge the author’s premise since “most” individuals may be able to remain on Earth while others colonize asteroids or other planets.


(B) is incorrect.

(B) does not preclude colonization of other interstellar bodies, since the necessary elements may be capable of transportation with the colonists.

(D) is incorrect.

(D) is irrelevant to the passage, the conclusion, and the premises on which it is based.

(E) is incorrect.

(E) is incorrect, since whether asteroids are exploited by colonists or descendants of colonists is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion that humans may not need to live on planets.

_________________

giving kudos is the best thing you can do for me..

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 3279
Location: India
City: Pune
GPA: 3.4
WE: Business Development (Manufacturing)
Followers: 340

Kudos [?]: 2499 [0], given: 1853

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2013, 22:56
anish123ster wrote:
A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.


Yeah Anish,

The difference was of Most and All

Thanks,

Narenn
_________________

MBA Rankings | Admission Deadlines | BSchool Adcom Chats | Applicant Status Tracker - Real Time Updates

Executive MBA | Part Time MBA | MBA Applicant Blogs | MBA Student Blogs

Impact of GMAT Score on Your Admission Chances
Special Scholarships and Fellowships Awarded at Top BSchools
Best Admissions Consulting Companies
Business School Reviews - Real and Verified
Global Map of Business Schools
Admission Trends at Top Business Schools Over Last 5 Years!!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 6

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2013, 07:08
If the conclusion states that human beings do not need to live on planets, then answer C makes the most sense because it mentions that ALL of human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
The correct answer should explain why Humans CANNOT leave planets. This answer C would weaken to conclusion. I think A would weaken as well but not as much as C. I missed the wording so I picked A at first but I think C is correct. What is the official right answer?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 162
Location: Poland
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 67

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2013, 04:44
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

Let's stick to the highlighted conclusion.
A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
Is acceleration the issue here?
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
Can the elements not be provided outside the Earth?
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
The gravity fields exist only on planets and human beings need gravity fields to live.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
Irrelevant.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.
Out of scope.
_________________

If I answered your question with this post, use the motivating power of kudos!

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9298
Followers: 806

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2014, 23:28
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 1637
Location: United States
Schools: Stanford '19
GMAT 1: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GMAT 3: 560 Q43 V24
GMAT 4: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.56
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 109

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2016, 19:25
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.


i easily reached the answer by POE.
1. strengthens the argument
2. looks like a strengthener so no.
3. aha, people can't live without gravity so definitely a weakener.
4. how long it will take is out of scope.
5. who will exploit the resources is out of scope.

C it is.
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in   [#permalink] 11 Apr 2016, 19:25
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
As far as we know, Earth is the only planet on which life vaivish1723 1 30 May 2009, 22:27
1 A recession is not caused by any economic force other than a reply2spg 10 19 Feb 2009, 18:28
18 Experts publish their posts in the topic The restaurant business wastes more energy than any other pmenon 66 07 Aug 2008, 05:27
Can anybody suggest best CR study guide other than OG and gmat_march 6 13 Aug 2007, 06:48
In many languages other than English there is a word for ajisha 3 02 Jun 2007, 21:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.