|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
16 Dec 2025, 08:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
There are two main explanations people talk about: wind abrasion or chemical crystallization.
The key weakness: the scientist treats these two explanations as if they are the only possible ones.
A This does not weaken the argument. The scientist already accepts that wind abrasion occurs but the claim is that it cannot fully explain the uniformity of the bands.
B This directly weakens the argument. If there are other possible formation processes besides wind abrasion and chemical crystallization, then ruling out wind abrasion does not justify concluding that chemical crystallization was involved.
C This is about definitions, not about whether chemical crystallization formed the ripple bands.
D Even if true, this does not explain why they have uniform width or show that chemical crystallization was not involved.
E This concerns the source of the grains, not the process that formed the ripple bands. The argument is about formation, not origin.
The answer is B
The key weakness: the scientist treats these two explanations as if they are the only possible ones.
A This does not weaken the argument. The scientist already accepts that wind abrasion occurs but the claim is that it cannot fully explain the uniformity of the bands.
B This directly weakens the argument. If there are other possible formation processes besides wind abrasion and chemical crystallization, then ruling out wind abrasion does not justify concluding that chemical crystallization was involved.
C This is about definitions, not about whether chemical crystallization formed the ripple bands.
D Even if true, this does not explain why they have uniform width or show that chemical crystallization was not involved.
E This concerns the source of the grains, not the process that formed the ripple bands. The argument is about formation, not origin.
The answer is B
16 Dec 2025, 08:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument assumes that since wind abrasion cannot be the complete explanation, the other of the two commonly debated hypotheses must be at least partly right.
This ignores the possibility that some third process (not wind abrasion, not chemical crystallization) is responsible, either alone or in combination with wind abrasion.
A It does not address the uniformity point. Its weakening is weak.
B This directly attacks the reasoning. If other possible causes exist, eliminating wind abrasion doesn't make chemical crystallization likely.
C It's irrelevant to Atira Plateau's actual formation cause.
D If they formed at different times, uniform width could still be explained by wind abrasion during periods of uniform winds, making wind abrasion a complete explanation possible. It maybe weakens premise but not the leap to chemical crystallization as directly as B does to the logic.
E It's irrelevant to how bands formed from existing grains.
The correct answer is B
This ignores the possibility that some third process (not wind abrasion, not chemical crystallization) is responsible, either alone or in combination with wind abrasion.
A It does not address the uniformity point. Its weakening is weak.
B This directly attacks the reasoning. If other possible causes exist, eliminating wind abrasion doesn't make chemical crystallization likely.
C It's irrelevant to Atira Plateau's actual formation cause.
D If they formed at different times, uniform width could still be explained by wind abrasion during periods of uniform winds, making wind abrasion a complete explanation possible. It maybe weakens premise but not the leap to chemical crystallization as directly as B does to the logic.
E It's irrelevant to how bands formed from existing grains.
The correct answer is B
16 Dec 2025, 08:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Solution :
Option A => Wind abrasion occurring does not mean that it is a factor in making the ripple-band sites. Eliminate.
Option B => The only hypothesis in contention as of now are the ones mentioned. Others are out of scope. Eliminate.
Option C => The major concern is to understand the features mentioned and which hypothesis fits the formation of them. The excluded ones are out of scope. Eliminate.
Option D => The ripple bands could have formed at different times when the wind patterns were uniform. this option explains how wind abrasion might be at play . Correct.
Option E => The origin of coarse and fine grain is out of scope. Eliminate.
Option D => Correct
Option A => Wind abrasion occurring does not mean that it is a factor in making the ripple-band sites. Eliminate.
Option B => The only hypothesis in contention as of now are the ones mentioned. Others are out of scope. Eliminate.
Option C => The major concern is to understand the features mentioned and which hypothesis fits the formation of them. The excluded ones are out of scope. Eliminate.
Option D => The ripple bands could have formed at different times when the wind patterns were uniform. this option explains how wind abrasion might be at play . Correct.
Option E => The origin of coarse and fine grain is out of scope. Eliminate.
Option D => Correct
