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

It is currently 24 Mar 2019, 00:07

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Posts: 35
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2011, 21:07
4
1
28
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:18) correct 42% (02:30) wrong based on 805 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Similar question from GMATPrep: LINK
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 557
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2011, 21:02
6
1
The second boldface is definitely is the conclusion of the argument based on the indicator " it is likely that " ( also you have to see the logical flow of the argument). Remain E and B. In choice B, the first boldface is not "against" the conclusion (2nd boldface). So, eliminate B. See E is the correct one. The first is likely the background or evidence when astronomer investigate in the features of Jupiter planet, and seems to support the argument.
_________________

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2012
Posts: 41
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2012, 09:23
jamifahad wrote:
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. Nevertheless, some
indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer
atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented
traces of sulfur.
The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but
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 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.

Can someone please help me understand this CR question? I just can't seem to understand Bo(w)l(e)d-Face CR.



1 diagraming
the 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

evidences to support
the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere
the comet fragment size was revealed by analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere with unprecedent level of sulfurs
not coming from the fragment themselves but from jupiter cloud layer

2. ANALYSE proposed choices
a wrong : both evidences are going in the same direction ,
b wrong it is not a claim not a conclusion
c ok
d it is not the conclusion
e no consideration given
they are completing ; the second one is not a counterpremise

hope this help


best regards


keira
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 626
Location: India
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 03:31
Marcab wrote:
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.

Source: Jamboree

OA
soon


We can eliminate Choices B and C because the first boldface contains nothing that weighs against the conclusion of the argument. Choice D can be similarly eliminated because the second boldface says nothing against the conclusion but in fact is the conclusion. Choice A is a bit tricky. But if you look carefully look at the first boldface, it is not something which he is explaining. It is something he uses to explain something else which is the second boldface. So you are now left with Choice E which makes perfect sense.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1096
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 03:49
Hii Sri.
I will really appreciate if you explain the choice E. I reduced the options to A and E but thereafter I was confused. Moreover since you said that in A first boldface is not something which he is explaining, I could have also said that in E the first boldface is not a judgement.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 626
Location: India
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 08:32
2
Marcab wrote:
Hii Sri.
I will really appreciate if you explain the choice E. I reduced the options to A and E but thereafter I was confused. Moreover since you said that in A first boldface is not something which he is explaining, I could have also said that in E the first boldface is not a judgement.



Dear Marcab,

It is only the belief of the astronomers that is offered as a support. So I think it is ok to consider it as a judgement.

To add to my explanation , a judgement is something which is subjective and is not objective. In this case since the support is based on what the astronomers think is correct and less on the actual facts, the support advanced is more a subjective one .
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 925
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 10:36
Marcab wrote:
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.

Source: Jamboree

OA
soon


HI Sri

It will be really helpful if you can break the argument into conclusion and premise and than present your explanation.....Because I still think that Second is not a conclusion it is a part of Explanation to the issues raised in first bold face.
BUt Marcab really good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 626
Location: India
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 16:26
1
Archit143 wrote:
Marcab wrote:
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
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.

Source: Jamboree

OA
soon


HI Sri

It will be really helpful if you can break the argument into conclusion and premise and than present your explanation.....Because I still think that Second is not a conclusion it is a part of Explanation to the issues raised in first bold face.
BUt Marcab really good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Dear Archit143,

For clarity I am separating the premise into parts. The second part is part of the first boldface and we can see it helps in arriving at the conclusion.

Premise 1 of the argument: comet fragments penetrated the cloud layer, means sulfur would seep in to Jupiter's outer atmosphere from the cloud layer below. We find traces of sulfur in the outer atmosphere but for that we need sulfur to be present in the cloud layer.

Premise 2 of the argument: Many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below the outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.

The Conclusion of the argument: So, "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."

Kindly note that that the astronomers are interested in finding out the size of the fragments. So the second boldface is indeed the conclusion.

The argument does not explain why the cloud layer below the outer atmosphere contain sulfur. So choice A is wrong.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 925
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2012, 19:45
1
Below Explanation is from Manhattan's link....explanation is by Ron...........Really straight fwd explained why second is the conclusion......................

first of all, no explanation is offered for the statement that the fragments didn't contain sulfur. that's just stated as an observation - it's not explained at all.

what is explained is that the fragments DID have sulfur after penetrating jupiter's atmosphere. however, no explanation is provided for why the fragments were devoid of sulfur in the first place.

second, it appears that you've got the basic structure of a passage backward. you don't use the conclusion to justify other statements - you use other statements to justify the conclusion!
if statement X justifies statement Y, then statement Y (not statement X) is the conclusion out of those two.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 436
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 305
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 634
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
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

New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 254
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

New post 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

Kudos please if helpful :)
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 25
Location: India
GPA: 3.85
WE: Engineering (Retail)
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2336
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

New post 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.

(E) is the best answer.
_________________

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

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
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

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja 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

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3732
Premium Member
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2019, 03:48
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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its   [#permalink] 02 Mar 2019, 03:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.