Meteorite explosions in the Earths atmosphere as large as the one that

Meteorite explosions in the Earth's atmosphere as large as the one that destroyed forests in Siberia, with approximately the force of a twelve-megaton nuclear blast, occur about once a century.

The statement says that meteorite explosions of a particular size in the Earth’s atmosphere occur about once a century.

Of what size?

As large as the one that destroyed forests in Siberia. The explosion had a force of a 12-megaton nuclear blast.

Such large meteorite explosions occur about once a century.

The response of highly automated systems controlled by complex computer programs to unexpected circumstances is unpredictable.

The response of particular systems to unexpected circumstances is not predictable.

Which particular systems are we talking about?

Highly automated systems controlled by complex computer programs.

The response of these systems to circumstances that are not expected is not predictable.

What about the response of other systems to unexpected circumstances?

We aren’t given any information.

A mistake many people may make

As we read the second statement (talking about unexpected circumstances) after the first statement (talking about an event that occurs very rarely i.e., once a century), I believe many people will assume that the rare event would be unexpected.

Can we say that?

No.

Rather, it is entirely possible that since we know that this event occurs about once a century, it is an expected event for the system, i.e., the system designers could have already fed this event into the programming of the system.




Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn, if the statements above are true, about a highly automated nuclear-missile defense system controlled by a complex computer program?

The question stem says, “if the statements are true”, so the statements in the passage are FACTS for us.

We need to find an option that states a conclusion that can most properly be drawn from the facts in the passage - the conclusion about the kind of system the second statement talks about i.e. a highly automated nuclear-missile defense system controlled by a complex computer program.




(A) Within a century after its construction, the system would react inappropriately and might accidentally start a nuclear war.

Incorrect. - This option is wrong for two reasons:

We don’t know that the once in a century event is an unexpected event for the system. If it’s an expected event for the system, we have been given no information about how the system would respond to such an event.
We are given that the system reacts in an unpredictable way to unexpected events. We’re not given that the response is “inappropriate”; the response could be entirely appropriate.

(B) The system would be destroyed if an explosion of a large meteorite occurred in the Earth's atmosphere.

Incorrect. - We have been given ZERO information about what it takes to destroy such a system.

Some of you may be wondering, “what if the whole Earth is destroyed?”

In such a case, assuming that the system was installed on Earth, we can say that the system will be destroyed.

However, we’re not given that explosion of a large meteorite will destroy the whole Earth. So, we cannot infer this option.

(C) It would be impossible for the system to distinguish the explosion of a large meteorite from the explosion of a nuclear weapon.

Incorrect. - This option is popular. My hypothesis is that people who mark this option or consider this option to be a good contender make three mistakes:

• Assume that once in a century event is unexpected for the system
• Fail to see the difference between the ideas
  
  • that the response is unpredictable
  • that the system WILL NOT be able to distinguish between two events
• Assume that the system can only differentiate between explosions based on the quantum of force

We know that the response of the system will be unpredictable in case of unexpected situations. However, “unpredictable” means something that cannot be predicted; the response could very well be very appropriate to the situation, and the system could very well distinguish between the meteorite explosion and the explosion of a nuclear weapon? How can we be sure that the system WILL NOT be able to distinguish between the two explosions? We cannot be.

(D) Whether the system would respond inappropriately to the explosion of a large meteorite would depend on the location of the blast.

Incorrect. - This option is wrong for three reasons:

1. We don’t know that the once in a century event is an unexpected event for the system. If it’s an expected event for the system, we have been given no information about how the system would respond to such an event.
2. We are given that the system reacts in an unpredictable way to unexpected events. We’re not given that the response is “inappropriate”; the response could be entirely appropriate.
3. We’ve been given no information to suggest that the response of the system or the unexpectedness of the situation depends on the location of the blast.

(E) It is not certain what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be, if its designers did not plan for such a contingency.

Correct. - “Not certain” means “not predictable”.

The “if” part makes the statement pertain to a situation that is unexpected for the system (the system designers did not plan for such an event -> means that the event is going to be unexpected for the system)

The statement means that one cannot predict the system’s response to the explosion of a large meteorite if the explosion is unexpected for the system.

We can infer this option from the second statement of the passage.

Though I also selected option E, but I was little confused between C and E. Was option C eliminated due to its comparison with nuclear weapons and which was no where mentioned?

The passage tells us that meteorite explosions can have the same force as a nuclear blast, but that doesn't necessarily imply that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a highly automated nuclear-missile defense system to tell the difference between a meteorite explosion and a nuclear blast.

Even though the forces are similar, perhaps there are other differences/factors that the computer program could use to distinguish one type from the other. If choice (C) were, "It might be difficult for the system to distinguish the explosion of a large meteorite from the explosion of a nuclear weapon," then (C) would be defensible. However, we do not have enough information to conclude that it would be impossible to tell the difference between these two types of events.

(C) can be eliminated, and (E) is the best answer.

MartyTargetTestPrep, jennpt, GMATNinja, VeritasKarishma
Q:
The underlined part is NOT discussed in the passage. So, are we forcing our-self to assume the underlined (if its designers did not plan for such a contingency) part?

Thank you sir for your response.
Sir, if you compare color to color part, you will not get the existence of the EXTRA info if its designers did not plan for such a contingency in correct choice E. In draw the conclusion question, we're not allowed to collect info from outside so far I know. So for that reason this thinking makes me confused.
By the by, can we still consider this as legit choice if we remove the underlined part from choice E?
(E) It is not certain what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be.

The part that you underlined is not information. It's a condition.

Regarding your second question, choice (E) is basically OK without the underlined part, though it's probably a bit better with it.

VeritasKarishma, AndrewN could you please help me with a doubt here?

Meteorite explosions in the Earth's atmosphere as large as the one that destroyed forests in Siberia, with approximately the force of a twelve-megaton nuclear blast, occur about once a century.
I felt that this part of the argument was not at all relevant in choosing the right option.

The response of highly automated systems controlled by complex computer programs to unexpected circumstances is unpredictable.
This line in itself is the entire argument. The above one was a separate disconnected argument.

Now my doubt is whether there could be two different options , each of which supported one of the arguments above. In such a scenario which one should we have picked? For instance, if there were a different option which said "Meteorite explosions with magnitude similar to that of a 12 megaton nuclear blast, though rare, are capable to destroying forests", in this case which one would have been the correct option in context of the argument? Thanks for your help !

Hello, aritrar4. The good news is that you will never (and I do not use this word frequently in my posts) be forced to choose between two correct answers. The answer choices are all carefully constructed so that one option stands above the rest. I agree that the background information provided in the first sentence was not brought to bear in answer choice (E), but such a feature is not uncommon within CR passages and answers. To be technically accurate, each of the two lines above is a statement, rather than an argument, just as the question stem informs us. Our goal is to tease out a reasonable conclusion from these two separate statements. Sure, your proposed option would work, as could many others, but then you could expect to see something like (E) replaced by another option that did not logically follow from the passage. That, in a nutshell, is how CR works. If you got this one right, well done.

Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

aritrar4:

The argument given to you is a set of statements. No conclusion is drawn. You can draw n number of conclusions from it. You need to look for one of them in the options.
Only one option will contain a conclusion.
Both statements of the argument are equally important. The conclusion could be drawn from either or both together.

Note the words used in the statements carefully.

Meteorite explosions in the Earth's atmosphere as large as the one that destroyed forests in Siberia, with approximately the force of a twelve-megaton nuclear blast, occur about once a century.

The response of highly automated systems controlled by complex computer programs to unexpected circumstances is unpredictable.



(A) Within a century after its construction, the system would react inappropriately and might accidentally start a nuclear war.

Option (A) utilises the first statement. It says "about once a century", not necessarily once a century.
The second statement says response is "unpredictable", not that it will be inappropriate.

(B) The system would be destroyed if an explosion of a large meteorite occurred in the Earth's atmosphere.

No such conclusion can be drawn.

(C) It would be impossible for the system to distinguish the explosion of a large meteorite from the explosion of a nuclear weapon.

Cannot say.

(D) Whether the system would respond inappropriately to the explosion of a large meteorite would depend on the location of the blast.

Again, unpredictable is given. Whether the response will be inappropriate, we cannot say.

(E) It is not certain what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be, if its designers did not plan for such a contingency.

Correct. "Not certain" means unpredictable. Response will be unpredictable if the explosion is an unexpected circumstance.

VeritasKarishma
Hi Karishma,

I was confused between A and E. I agree that E can be concluded with the given info. However it was difficult to reject A.
(A) Within a century after its construction, the system would react inappropriately and might accidentally start a nuclear war.
The passage suggests that the response of system is "unpredictable". So from "would react inappropriately", we can derive that it is possible that the unpredictable reaction could be inappropriate. The usage of "would" in A suggests a possible reaction not a certain reaction. Why can't we infer this from option A?

Thanks!

"within a century" is too defined a time line. What if a meteorite strike doesn't happen within a century? The argument only says that a meteorite strike happens "about once a century" so it gives an approximate time line. It could happen after 105 years too.

Usage of "would" does not signal possibility. We need 'may' for that. "Would" shows an imaginary situation. Also, the reaction will be unpredictable. It may not be inappropriate. We cannot say that the system would react inappropriately.

Also, "might start a nuclear war" is too precise to be a conclusion when nuclear war isn't even mentioned in the argument. A conclusion has no new information.

Hi MartyTargetTestPrep, please help chime in to clarify. For the choice E, can we then infer that if its designers DID plan for such a contingency, It will be CERTAIN what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be? If this true I'm bit confused since the stimulus states that The response is unpredictable, I understand "unpredictable" means even when plan, we still cannot predict in advance (otherwise it would be predictable?) . Then E not need to be true

We can't take (E) to mean that "if its designers DID plan for such a contingency, It will be CERTAIN what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be." Also, there's no need to consider whether (E) has that implication.

For (E) to be true, we need the information to support only what (E) says as written, and the facts presented by the stimulus do support (E) as written.

On another note, notice that the stimulus does not say simply, "the response is unpredictable." Rather, it qualifies the statement about the response by saying, "The response of highly automated systems controlled by complex computer programs TO UNEXPECTED CIRCUMSTANCES is unpredictable."

So, if the circumstances are EXPECTED and, therefore, planned for or taken into account, it may be that the response is predictable.

The first statement establishes that meteorite explosions of a certain magnitude occur about once a century, while the second statement asserts the unpredictable response of highly automated systems to unexpected circumstances. Based on these premises, let's evaluate each option:

(A) Within a century after its construction, the system would react inappropriately and might accidentally start a nuclear war.
This option goes beyond the information provided and makes a speculative claim about the system's behavior. There is no direct evidence to support this conclusion.

(B) The system would be destroyed if an explosion of a large meteorite occurred in the Earth's atmosphere.
There is no information in the statements to suggest that the system would be destroyed by a meteorite explosion. The statements only discuss the frequency of such explosions, not their impact on the system's physical integrity.

(C) It would be impossible for the system to distinguish the explosion of a large meteorite from the explosion of a nuclear weapon.
The statements do not provide any information about the system's ability or inability to differentiate between a meteorite explosion and a nuclear weapon explosion. This conclusion goes beyond the given information.

(D) Whether the system would respond inappropriately to the explosion of a large meteorite would depend on the location of the blast.
There is no mention of the system's response being location-dependent in the given statements. This conclusion introduces new information not provided in the premises.

(E) It is not certain what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be if its designers did not plan for such a contingency.
This conclusion is supported by the second statement, which states that the response of highly automated systems to unexpected circumstances is unpredictable. If the designers did not plan for the specific contingency of a meteorite explosion, the system's response would indeed be uncertain.

Based on the analysis, the most proper conclusion that can be drawn is (E) It is not certain what the system's response to the explosion of a large meteorite would be if its designers did not plan for such a contingency.