GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 12:58

### 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

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

# According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 142
According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 16 Mar 2011, 03:09
1
6
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (01:40) correct 51% (01:46) wrong based on 437 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a
meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an
average of once every 100 million years. The last such
incident occurred nearly 100 million years ago, so we
can expect that Earth will be struck by such a meteorite
in the near future. This clearly warrants funding to
determine whether there is a means to protect our
planet from such meteorite strikes.

The reasoning in the argument is most subject to
criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) makes a bold prescription on the basis of
evidence that establishes only a high
probability for a disastrous event
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the
probability of a chance event’s occurring is not
affected by whether the event has occurred during
a period in which it would be expected to occur
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occur
(D) fails to specify the likelihood that, if such a
meteorite should strike Earth, the meteorite
would indeed cause an ice age
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
some feasible means can be found to deter
large meteorite strikes

Originally posted by vjsharma25 on 15 Mar 2011, 22:49.
Last edited by vjsharma25 on 16 Mar 2011, 03:09, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 142
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2011, 23:06
gmat1220 wrote:
100% A

I was also that much confident when I answered this,but answers always elude us.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 787
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2011, 23:11
This is elusive ! I will consider B next.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 787
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2011, 23:34
CR is based on one word.

Earth is struck by a
meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an
average of once every 100 million years.

gmat1220 wrote:
This is elusive ! I will consider B next.
Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 249
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2011, 00:18
I think the Answer should be A:
(A) makes a bold prescription on the basis of
evidence that establishes only a high
probability for a disastrous event: The statement does use bold word- 'warrant' for his prescription based on evidence which at best indicates high probabilty based on average frequency
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the
probability of a chance event’s occurring is not
affected by whether the event has occurred during
a period in which it would be expected to occurthe sentence doesnt do that- in fact it presumes the opposite
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occurAuthor is not very specific in his prediction. he says near future-- Though this option is pretty close
(D) fails to specify the likelihood that, if such a
meteorite should strike Earth, the meteorite
would indeed cause an ice age The author doesnt fail to specify that- he clearly presumes that a metorite atrike will cause ice age- that's his entire source of worry!
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
some feasible means can be found to deter
large meteorite strikesHe doesnt- he only says that funding is warranted to find out whether any way to deter is possible or not[/quote]
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 142
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2011, 03:09
vivesomnium wrote:
I think the Answer should be A:
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occurAuthor is not very specific in his prediction. he says near future-- Though this option is pretty close

I rejected this option for the same reason you have cited,use of "specific",but this is the answer.
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 168
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 12:58
2
Initially though A but then went with C..Clear indicators are words "AVERAGE" and " Near Future "
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2014
Posts: 65
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2014, 10:12
2
vjsharma25 wrote:
According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a
meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an
average of once every 100 million years. The last such
incident occurred nearly 100 million years ago, so we
can expect that Earth will be struck by such a meteorite
in the near future. This clearly warrants funding to
determine whether there is a means to protect our
planet from such meteorite strikes.

The reasoning in the argument is most subject to
criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) makes a bold prescription on the basis of
evidence that establishes only a high
probability for a disastrous event
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the
probability of a chance event’s occurring is not
affected by whether the event has occurred during
a period in which it would be expected to occur
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occur
(D) fails to specify the likelihood that, if such a
meteorite should strike Earth, the meteorite
would indeed cause an ice age
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
some feasible means can be found to deter
large meteorite strikes

Found this solution, I hope this will help us for better understanding..
According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a
meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an
average of once every 100 million years. The last such
incident occurred nearly 100 million years ago:
Conclusion: so we can expect that Earth will be struck by such a meteorite
in the near future. This clearly warrants funding to
determine whether there is a means to protect our
planet from such meteorite strikes.

Let's combine "So and Clearly.": Then some astronomers concludes that Earth will definately be struck by such a meteorite large enough to cause an ice age. Yet their conclusion is based on only average freuency of strikes without enough and specific evidence or data to prove it.

Analogy here: "Tom drinks a bottle of beer average of once a year. he drank one bottle of beer last year, so he will drink it in the future, which clearly warrants a strategy to determine whether there is a means to prevent him from drinking it."

Can you predict, based on average frequency of his dringking, that he will definately drink it in near future? Not really! Waht if he stops drinking it for some reasons!

(A) makes a bold prescription on the basis of
evidence that establishes only a high
probability for a disastrous event:
=in fact this describes the argument but not indicates falws.

(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the
probability of a chance event’s occurring is not
affected by whether the event has occurred during
a period in which it would be expected to occur
=180 degree to the argument.

(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occur
=Here the flaw goes.

(D) fails to specify the likelihood that, if such a
meteorite should strike Earth, the meteorite
would indeed cause an ice age
=stimulus says "large enough to cause"

(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
some feasible means can be found to deter
large meteorite strikes:
=Not warranted but opens possibility of determinig it.
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2013
Posts: 58
GMAT Date: 01-08-2015
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2014, 07:31
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occur

-> flaw. the author predicts something, so we got a problem with the evidence.
Manager
Status: Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 155
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
Schools: Boston U '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 3
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2014, 08:26
C is clear winner as it takes on from average to specific...
_________________

Hard-work, Perseverance and Commitment.....

Intern
Joined: 25 Nov 2014
Posts: 3
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2015, 05:51
nice question thanks for posting.i got it right.
Intern
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 26
Location: India
GPA: 3.85
WE: Engineering (Retail)
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2018, 05:21
I marked C correctly. But A & C are very close.
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a &nbs [#permalink] 11 Feb 2018, 05:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.