Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 04:32 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 04:32 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
01 Jul 2022, 12:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
PyjamaScientist
Hello, PyjamaScientist. I would argue that previously is, in fact, vital to answer choice (D). It tells us that the fullerenes found in nature are known to be arranged in a different crystalline structure from the lab-generated fullerenes. Consider the answer choice without previously:
(D.2) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in an unknown crystalline structure.
By itself, unknown cannot be interpreted to mean necessarily different. For instance, many sea creatures at the bottom of the ocean could be speculated to possess unknown physical features, but previously unknown physical features would indicate that they have actually been observed or studied. Sure, another adjective besides unknown could function on its own in a similar capacity—different comes to mind, as does unique—but in the context of the answer choice, previously unknown must be considered together for (D) to be correct.
Thank you for thinking to ask.
- Andrew
medicaldevicegirl
Joined: 09 May 2023
Last visit: 10 Nov 2023
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Location: United States (TN)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Healthcare
Schools: Stanford '25 Sloan '25
GPA: 3.14
WE:Project Management (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
31 May 2023, 04:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
B seems like a relevant weakener to me. If the fullerenes from earth didn’t originate in the earth’s crust but instead are there because of meteorite crashes it would seriously weaken the argument.
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
01 Oct 2023, 05:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Pre-thinking - What if the fullerenes in nature are formed by some other process, or they are not similar in structure to the ones formed in the Lab? In that case we'll not get to know about the state of Earth's crust. The scope of the argument is limited to finding new information that is aligned with the scope of the argument - laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure; this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating the hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation. - Out of scope
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft. - maybe the same conditions on the meteorite. Distortion
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed. - Out of scope.
(D) The naturally occuring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure. - per our thinking
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions- We know that. Distortion
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation. - Out of scope
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft. - maybe the same conditions on the meteorite. Distortion
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed. - Out of scope.
(D) The naturally occuring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure. - per our thinking
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions- We know that. Distortion
ChiranjeevSingh
Expert
Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 429
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 163
Status:Private GMAT Tutor
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V85 DI85 
GMAT Focus 2: 735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 3: 735 Q88 V87 DI84
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Expert reply
10 Oct 2025, 00:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Passage Analysis
Although fullerenes—spherical molecules made entirely of carbon—were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.
Almost everyone gets the sentence right. The statement presents a contrast indicated by the word although. It talks about molecules, fullerenes. These are spherical molecules made only of carbon. The molecules were first found in the lab, but they have been found in nature after that. And in nature, they were formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.
Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure
The sentence starts with the word since. There are going to be two parts to this sentence. The first part is going to present a support or a reason for the second part. This first part says that the lab synthesis of the fullerenes, the molecules that we have talked about, requires specific conditions of temperature and pressure. If you want to create the molecules in a lab, you need a unique set of conditions of temperature and pressure.
this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
This is a part that people rarely ever understand. The most common interpretation of this statement that I have seen is that the discovery should tell us something about the state of the Earth's crust. If you also understand this much, then you are faltering on the comprehension. A very common reason people falter in comprehending this statement in one go is that the statement is pretty complex, so they can't do justice to it in one go. So they end up with a superficial meaning of this statement.
Let's try to understand this. It says that this discovery... what does this discovery refer to?
Here some people think that this discovery refers to the part in the since clause. But when I ask them, "Is that a discovery?" there is nothing to suggest that the since part is a discovery. So then they backtrack. The discovery here refers to the finding of the fullerenes in nature.
The sentence says that that discovery should give geologists a test case to evaluate some hypothesis. So we already have some hypothesis that you're trying to evaluate using this discovery.
What does evaluation mean?
Evaluation means figuring out whether our hypothesis is correct or not. So this discovery should help us do that.
What is the hypothesis about?
The hypothesis is about the state of the Earth's crust.
What does the state of the Earth's crust mean?
Again, there could be multiple parameters defining the state of the Earth's crust, but we have so far talked about temperature and pressure. So I will think that, okay, it's talking about the temperature and pressure of the Earth's crust.
At what time? At the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed. So let's say these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed 2000 years ago. So we are talking about the hypothesis about what the temperature and pressure of the Earth's crust was 2000 years ago, and the finding of fullerenes in nature will help us evaluate this hypothesis.
How will that finding help us evaluate this hypothesis?
This is something that people don't take a pause to think about. Whenever a statement that is a part of a paragraph or a passage makes a link, we have to take a pause to understand how that link makes sense, given the context set up.
In this specific case, if you look at the since part, the since part says in the lab, you require a set of specific temperature and pressure, right? And this hypothesis is about the temperature and pressure of the Earth's crust 2000 years ago. Now, if these fullerenes are found in nature, then the natural conditions at the time these fullerenes were formed must be the lab conditions that are required to create fullerenes. So we have a test case.
Basically, this discovery tells us that the state of the Earth's crust 2000 years ago was what the lab conditions are required. If the hypothesis is saying the same thing, the hypothesis is strengthened by this discovery. On the contrary, if the hypothesis is saying something different about temperature and pressure, the hypothesis is weakened by this discovery.
For example, if the lab conditions required for fullerenes are 50°C temperature and 100 units of pressure, now, given the discovery, we have a reason to believe that the state of the Earth's crust 2000 years ago was 50°C temperature and 100 units of pressure. If a hypothesis about the Earth's crust 2000 years ago is also saying that it was 50°C temperature and 100 units of pressure, then the hypothesis is strengthened. If, on the other hand, the hypothesis is saying the temperature was 20°C and the pressure was 60 units, then the hypothesis is weakened by the discovery.
So that is how this discovery will give us a case to evaluate this hypothesis. That is the comprehension of the statement.
The overall gist of the argument is that these fullerene molecules were initially formed in the lab, but they have since been found in nature. And their finding in nature will help us evaluate the hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust when these fullerenes were formed.
Why? Because these fullerenes require a specific set of temperature and pressure, and that must be the same in the Earth's crust whenever these fullerenes were formed. So if the hypothesis is saying the same thing, then the hypothesis is strengthened; otherwise, the hypothesis is weakened.
Options Evaluation
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
Incorrect. This option says that to confirm that the mineral shungite actually contained fullerenes required careful experimentation, so it took some effort to confirm.
This is not relevant to the argument. Whether confirming this took careful experimentation or whether it was a straightforward task does not impact the argument because we are given that fullerenes have been found. We have to take that as a fact. Whether that finding was easily done or took some effort has no impact on the argument.
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
Incorrect. This is a very popular option. I think the reason many people mark this option is that they think that if some fullerenes have been found on the remains of a small meteorite, then the discovery of the fullerenes cannot really tell us about the state of the Earth's crust. The discovery should tell us about the state of the meteorite.
This logic would have worked fine if the option had stated: "Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that was found next to the mineral shungite." In that case, we would have reason to believe the fullerenes that we have found in shungite have probably come from the meteorite. However, in the present case, this logic does not work because the option says that the meteorite collided with a spacecraft. The meteorite has not even been found on Earth, let alone anywhere close to shungite.
Think about it. If a meteorite that fell on some other part of the world also contains fullerenes, do you start doubting your discovery of fullerenes and think that these fullerenes would have also come from that particular meteorite that fell in some other part of the world? No, that does not make sense. In this case, the meteorite collided with a spacecraft. It's nowhere close to where we have discovered the fullerenes, so it does not make sense to think that our fullerenes have come from the meteorite.
I think this is an excellent play on a gap that a lot of people can think about, but the option just goes completely off while starting off in the right direction, and people just don't notice that. This option has no impact.
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
Incorrect. This option also has no impact. Whether the mineral shungite contains large amounts of carbon or does not contain any carbon has no impact on the argument.
Again, some people may think that, well, if they formed from the carbon contained in the mineral shungite, then the fullerenes have not really formed in the Earth's crust. But this logic does not make sense because the mineral shungite would also be in the Earth's crust, right? It's not out there in space. So, whether fullerenes formed from the carbon from the mineral shungite or from some other carbons has no relevance to the argument.
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
Correct. This option weakens the argument. It's a cleverly worded statement. Its meaning is that the naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a crystalline structure that was not previously known.
How is this "not previously known" relevant? This is very relevant because if you look at the chronology of the discovery, the fullerenes were first discovered in the lab. Then they were discovered in nature. By saying that the naturally occurring fullerenes are in a previously unknown structure, the statement indicates that the structure of these fullerenes is not the same as the structure of the fullerenes that were found in the lab.
Now, if the structure is not the same, can we say that they still require the same temperature and pressure as the lab-synthesized ones? No, we cannot say that. Now we have a doubt. These naturally occurring fullerenes could require a different set of temperature and pressure, and we don't know that set; we only know the temperature and pressure conditions required in the lab.
In that case, the discovery would not help us evaluate the hypothesis because we don't even know the temperature and pressure required for the naturally occurring fullerenes. This is a weakener.
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
Incorrect. This option has no impact. Whether shungite is formed under distinctive conditions or not has no relevance to the argument. The argument is about using the distinctive conditions of fullerenes to evaluate the hypothesis. Whether shungite is formed under distinctive conditions or can be formed in a variety of conditions has no impact on the argument.
Although fullerenes—spherical molecules made entirely of carbon—were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.
Almost everyone gets the sentence right. The statement presents a contrast indicated by the word although. It talks about molecules, fullerenes. These are spherical molecules made only of carbon. The molecules were first found in the lab, but they have been found in nature after that. And in nature, they were formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.
Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure
The sentence starts with the word since. There are going to be two parts to this sentence. The first part is going to present a support or a reason for the second part. This first part says that the lab synthesis of the fullerenes, the molecules that we have talked about, requires specific conditions of temperature and pressure. If you want to create the molecules in a lab, you need a unique set of conditions of temperature and pressure.
this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
This is a part that people rarely ever understand. The most common interpretation of this statement that I have seen is that the discovery should tell us something about the state of the Earth's crust. If you also understand this much, then you are faltering on the comprehension. A very common reason people falter in comprehending this statement in one go is that the statement is pretty complex, so they can't do justice to it in one go. So they end up with a superficial meaning of this statement.
Let's try to understand this. It says that this discovery... what does this discovery refer to?
Here some people think that this discovery refers to the part in the since clause. But when I ask them, "Is that a discovery?" there is nothing to suggest that the since part is a discovery. So then they backtrack. The discovery here refers to the finding of the fullerenes in nature.
The sentence says that that discovery should give geologists a test case to evaluate some hypothesis. So we already have some hypothesis that you're trying to evaluate using this discovery.
What does evaluation mean?
Evaluation means figuring out whether our hypothesis is correct or not. So this discovery should help us do that.
What is the hypothesis about?
The hypothesis is about the state of the Earth's crust.
What does the state of the Earth's crust mean?
Again, there could be multiple parameters defining the state of the Earth's crust, but we have so far talked about temperature and pressure. So I will think that, okay, it's talking about the temperature and pressure of the Earth's crust.
At what time? At the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed. So let's say these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed 2000 years ago. So we are talking about the hypothesis about what the temperature and pressure of the Earth's crust was 2000 years ago, and the finding of fullerenes in nature will help us evaluate this hypothesis.
How will that finding help us evaluate this hypothesis?
This is something that people don't take a pause to think about. Whenever a statement that is a part of a paragraph or a passage makes a link, we have to take a pause to understand how that link makes sense, given the context set up.
In this specific case, if you look at the since part, the since part says in the lab, you require a set of specific temperature and pressure, right? And this hypothesis is about the temperature and pressure of the Earth's crust 2000 years ago. Now, if these fullerenes are found in nature, then the natural conditions at the time these fullerenes were formed must be the lab conditions that are required to create fullerenes. So we have a test case.
Basically, this discovery tells us that the state of the Earth's crust 2000 years ago was what the lab conditions are required. If the hypothesis is saying the same thing, the hypothesis is strengthened by this discovery. On the contrary, if the hypothesis is saying something different about temperature and pressure, the hypothesis is weakened by this discovery.
For example, if the lab conditions required for fullerenes are 50°C temperature and 100 units of pressure, now, given the discovery, we have a reason to believe that the state of the Earth's crust 2000 years ago was 50°C temperature and 100 units of pressure. If a hypothesis about the Earth's crust 2000 years ago is also saying that it was 50°C temperature and 100 units of pressure, then the hypothesis is strengthened. If, on the other hand, the hypothesis is saying the temperature was 20°C and the pressure was 60 units, then the hypothesis is weakened by the discovery.
So that is how this discovery will give us a case to evaluate this hypothesis. That is the comprehension of the statement.
The overall gist of the argument is that these fullerene molecules were initially formed in the lab, but they have since been found in nature. And their finding in nature will help us evaluate the hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust when these fullerenes were formed.
Why? Because these fullerenes require a specific set of temperature and pressure, and that must be the same in the Earth's crust whenever these fullerenes were formed. So if the hypothesis is saying the same thing, then the hypothesis is strengthened; otherwise, the hypothesis is weakened.
Options Evaluation
(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
Incorrect. This option says that to confirm that the mineral shungite actually contained fullerenes required careful experimentation, so it took some effort to confirm.
This is not relevant to the argument. Whether confirming this took careful experimentation or whether it was a straightforward task does not impact the argument because we are given that fullerenes have been found. We have to take that as a fact. Whether that finding was easily done or took some effort has no impact on the argument.
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
Incorrect. This is a very popular option. I think the reason many people mark this option is that they think that if some fullerenes have been found on the remains of a small meteorite, then the discovery of the fullerenes cannot really tell us about the state of the Earth's crust. The discovery should tell us about the state of the meteorite.
This logic would have worked fine if the option had stated: "Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that was found next to the mineral shungite." In that case, we would have reason to believe the fullerenes that we have found in shungite have probably come from the meteorite. However, in the present case, this logic does not work because the option says that the meteorite collided with a spacecraft. The meteorite has not even been found on Earth, let alone anywhere close to shungite.
Think about it. If a meteorite that fell on some other part of the world also contains fullerenes, do you start doubting your discovery of fullerenes and think that these fullerenes would have also come from that particular meteorite that fell in some other part of the world? No, that does not make sense. In this case, the meteorite collided with a spacecraft. It's nowhere close to where we have discovered the fullerenes, so it does not make sense to think that our fullerenes have come from the meteorite.
I think this is an excellent play on a gap that a lot of people can think about, but the option just goes completely off while starting off in the right direction, and people just don't notice that. This option has no impact.
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
Incorrect. This option also has no impact. Whether the mineral shungite contains large amounts of carbon or does not contain any carbon has no impact on the argument.
Again, some people may think that, well, if they formed from the carbon contained in the mineral shungite, then the fullerenes have not really formed in the Earth's crust. But this logic does not make sense because the mineral shungite would also be in the Earth's crust, right? It's not out there in space. So, whether fullerenes formed from the carbon from the mineral shungite or from some other carbons has no relevance to the argument.
(D) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
Correct. This option weakens the argument. It's a cleverly worded statement. Its meaning is that the naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a crystalline structure that was not previously known.
How is this "not previously known" relevant? This is very relevant because if you look at the chronology of the discovery, the fullerenes were first discovered in the lab. Then they were discovered in nature. By saying that the naturally occurring fullerenes are in a previously unknown structure, the statement indicates that the structure of these fullerenes is not the same as the structure of the fullerenes that were found in the lab.
Now, if the structure is not the same, can we say that they still require the same temperature and pressure as the lab-synthesized ones? No, we cannot say that. Now we have a doubt. These naturally occurring fullerenes could require a different set of temperature and pressure, and we don't know that set; we only know the temperature and pressure conditions required in the lab.
In that case, the discovery would not help us evaluate the hypothesis because we don't even know the temperature and pressure required for the naturally occurring fullerenes. This is a weakener.
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
Incorrect. This option has no impact. Whether shungite is formed under distinctive conditions or not has no relevance to the argument. The argument is about using the distinctive conditions of fullerenes to evaluate the hypothesis. Whether shungite is formed under distinctive conditions or can be formed in a variety of conditions has no impact on the argument.
