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

 It is currently 21 Sep 2018, 17:03

### 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

# Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 136
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2013, 14:57
1
Marcab wrote:
Yeah, sorry for that.
Edited the post.
Infact I too have seen this question earlier, but the answer choices were different.

Marcab,

Below was my reason to eliminate A

"The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation" -- This statement describes the first bold faced correctly as a circumstance for which explanation is offered. However, second bold faced is not part of that explanation, which explains first bold faced. In fact this is the conclusion.
_________________

MGMAT1 - 540 ( Trying to improve )

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5002
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2014, 13:22
1
2
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 486
Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2014, 00:42
Astronomer:
(Background)
Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were.
In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.

(Finding)
These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry.
The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
(conclude)
"it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up."

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.>> First is not against conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.>> First is not against conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.>> Second is not against conclusion or the first stmt.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

A vs E.
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.
Hence => "it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up."
Second stmt sounds more like something that is derived using first.It doesn't offer any explanation.

That is what E does.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Retired Moderator
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 339
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2014, 03:54
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The 2nd BF is a conclusion and the 1st is a premise on which the conclusion is based on.

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.There is no explanation given for the 1st BF. IT is accepted the way it is and is used to base a conclusion. The 2nd BF is not part of an explanation, rather a conclusion.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.The 2nd BF is indeed a conclusion but the 1st BF never goes against the conclusion. On the contrary, the 1st BF is a premise on which the 2nd BF(a conclusion) is based on.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion. The 1st BF never goes against the conclusion. On the contrary, the 1st BF is a premise on which the 2nd BF(a conclusion) is based on. The 2nd BF doesnt support the conclusion but is the conclusion itself.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.The 1st BF is indeed what it is mentioned but the 2nd BF is the conclusion itself and doesnt weigh against the conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.Bingo. Correct.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 386
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2014, 07:37
I didn't know what to choose between A and E.
I had a problem with the phrasing of: "judgement" in E. Where is there a judgment?
Current Student
Joined: 04 Mar 2014
Posts: 131
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2014, 23:38
How can BF1 be a judgement.It looks like a clear fact!
Intern
Joined: 15 Feb 2016
Posts: 10
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2016, 05:14
A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

The first is not a claim that the author is trying to prove. It is an observed fact. A, B are out.
D: The second is not the conclusion. The conclusion is about how big the fragments were. D is out.
E: The second helps in reaching the conclusion and does not weight against the explanation. E is out.
That leaves C
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 547
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2016, 02:58
The conc is "it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up."

Both work together to support the conc.
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2016
Posts: 5
Location: India
Concentration: Nonprofit, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Apr 2017, 21:04
Getting the estimate of the Size is the goal so anything accomplishing that would be the Conclusion. Now,lets follow the premises,one by one, leading to the conclusion.
1. Analyses found sulfur in the Outer Layer
2.The fragments contained no sulfur (so, it is to good to think that Sulfur is either in outer or inner layer)
3. Yes, it is inner atmosphere that contains sulfur. Sulfur would have seeped into the outer layer. For that to happen it is necessary that fragments of Comet facilitate the process of Seeping. for that to happen it is mandatory for Fragments to Pass through inner layer and in turn, for that to happen It is necessary that Fragments are large enough to Survive the friction of Outer Layer( Or outer atmosphere)
4. Fragments were big enough in Size- Our Conclusion.
........So, Each Bold Sentence leads to the conclusion. So, C for me is the answer( Changed from my previous ans)

Originally posted by ramkaswan on 28 Jan 2017, 03:31.
Last edited by ramkaswan on 19 Apr 2017, 21:04, edited 3 times in total.
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 649
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2017, 20:31
Analysis: Conclusion is: it is likely that some of the fragments were at
least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere
without being burned up – giving indication of the size of the fragments!
1st part is a consideration that the author is using to prove something so
it is either C or D. 2nd part is definitely not a conclusion. Hence, C is
better.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 268
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2017, 20:57
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

BEFORE diving into A/C, IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up
> Note: BF2 = Conclusion!

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
- BF2 = conclusion

(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
- The two BF phrases do not weigh against each other

(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
- Same as "A"

(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
- Same as "A"

(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion
- Correct as is

Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1322
Location: Malaysia
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2018, 23:05
GMATNinja, Could you help with this question?
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Intern
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 26
Location: India
GPA: 3.85
WE: Engineering (Retail)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2018, 05:15
How can it be E.

Its C, The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion. This is the perfect answer.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2021
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2018, 23:14
1
1
HannibalLecter wrote:
How can it be E.

Its C, The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion. This is the perfect answer.

The second BF portion is indeed the conclusion itself, not evidence in support of the conclusion.

Why is it "likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up?" Because the OUTER atmosphere contained unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The word "unprecedented" implies that traces of sulfur had never been detected before the collision. So the outer atmosphere should NOT contain sulfur.

In that case, how did traces of sulfur appear in the outer atmosphere? Well, IF the fragments had penetrated the cloud layer BELOW the outer atmosphere, then the sulfur from the cloud layer could have seeped up into the outer atmosphere. This would explain the traces of sulfur that were detected in the outer atmosphere AFTER the entry.

Based on the sulfur evidence, it is likely that at least SOME of the fragments were large enough to reach the cloud layer (this is the conclusion of the argument). Someone might respond to that argument by saying, "Well, what if the sulfur came from comet itself? Then your argument is invalid." But the first BF portion addresses this possible criticism. Thus, the first BF statement is a judgment (almost certainly, not certainly) advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

The first BF statement actually helps the argument and does not weigh against the conclusion. Thus, (C) should be eliminated.

_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its &nbs [#permalink] 15 Feb 2018, 23:14

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ]

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®.