It is currently 25 Jun 2017, 12:37

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 162
According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2011, 22:49
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (02:39) correct 51% (01:48) wrong based on 366 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by vjsharma25 on 16 Mar 2011, 03:09, edited 1 time in total.
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: 900
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2011, 23:01
100% A
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 162
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: 900
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: 900
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: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 177
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2011, 00:17
tough one....whats oa
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 279
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: 162
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 265
Re: meteorite struck once every 100 million years [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2011, 12:58
1
KUDOS
Initially though A but then went with C..Clear indicators are words "AVERAGE" and " Near Future "
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10155
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2014, 04:09
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.
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2014
Posts: 74
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2014, 10:12
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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: 60
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: 169
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.
Re: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a   [#permalink] 23 Oct 2015, 05:51
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 Some say that an asteroid colliding with Earth was responsible for the 10 13 Mar 2017, 17:00
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker 0 01 Sep 2014, 00:25
6 According to some sports historians 8 14 Sep 2016, 00:02
33 Some say that an asteroid colliding with Earth was 15 17 Jun 2017, 14:26
1 According to some sports historians, professional tennis 7 21 Nov 2014, 04:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by