It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 01:50

### 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

# Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows:

Author Message
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 19:36
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: on Earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens'-methane-producing bacteria. But there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets, for example. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials also.

Which of the following is true of this argument?

A) It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.

B) Since this argument appeals to no analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.

C) This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.

D) The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if on-site explorations of other planets in our solar system were to reveal the existence of methanogenic bacteria there.

E) It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica, without bacterial action, at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 571

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Location: Munich,Germany

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 20:08
go for D here.

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2893

Kudos [?]: 316 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 20:46
Will explain, if correct.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 316 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 351

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 20:56
Tough one.....

Is it A??

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 367

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

Location: Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: CR: Natural occurences of methane [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 21:07
IMO C, but this one doesn't seem like GMAT style.
_________________

The only thing that matters is what you believe.

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 21:23
Will go with C here.

D and E are out they incorrect refer weaken and strengthen respectively wheras D strengthens and E weakens.

A - Drawing analogy between other substances cannot help the argument.
B - Incorrect. It draws analogy between methane produced in Earth and methane produced on ET bodies.

C - the best choice. Obviously the argument doesnot produce any evidence other than drawing an analogy. It can be strenghten if the process of methanogens can be explained and compared with the condition on ET bodies.

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Location: Italy
Re: CR: Natural occurences of methane [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 02:43
Which of the following is true of this argument?

A) It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.

B) Since this argument appeals to no analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane. out of scope

C) This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane. no

D) The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if on-site explorations of other planets in our solar system were to reveal the existence of methanogenic bacteria there. would rather be strengthned

E) It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica, without bacterial action, at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system. it seems the one links the two thesis
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 68

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 02:57
It is really a tough one for me. I will go with C.
_________________

Hema

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 71

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 03:55
A it is

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 751

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 04:56
C for me

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 326

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 05:31
C it should be ............

D & E are 180 to what is said in the argument.

A & B- Out of Scope (Other Things)

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 08:30
OA is A

OE:
(A) is the only alternative which fits the description given of Hoyle's argument The argument clearly does appeal to a similarity between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena --that methane occurs both on earth and in comets. It concludes that there (probably) is a further similarity-that the methane in comets is the product of bacteria, just as it invariably is on earth. This line of argument would, of course, be strengthened by the discovery of further similarities of the first kind; for example, other compounds which occur in both places, and whose terrestrial occurrence is, like that of methane, strongly linked to bacterial action.
(B) cannot be correct, since it denies that the original argument appeals to an analogy.
Concerning (C), the argument might be strengthened if we had some good account of the process of bacterial production of methane. But we might know that this production is a fact, and even that it is, so far as we can tell, the only source of terrestrialmethagens without knowing that process. And in that case the analogy would still have some evidential force with respect to what happens extraterrestrially.
The scenario in (D) would strengthen the plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion; indeed, it is hard to think of anything that would strengthen it more.
The events described in (E) would weaken it by revealing an analogy which suggests a non-organic source of methane in comets.

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 111

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: London

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 03:24
Has to be A.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

19 Jul 2006, 03:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by