Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

Question

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

tuanquang269 · Accepted Answer

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.

GMATNinja · 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.

keiraria · Answer

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

SVaidyaraman · Answer

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.

Marcab · Answer

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.

SVaidyaraman · Answer

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 .

Archit143 · Answer

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SVaidyaraman · Answer

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.

Archit143 · Answer

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.

JarvisR · Answer

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.

AmoyV · Answer

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.

anairamitch1804 · Answer

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.

LakerFan24 · Answer

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.

HannibalLecter · Answer

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.

egmat · Answer

SOLUTION

Passage Analysis

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.
•  A fact, circumstance, situation, observation of an event. 
 In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere.
•  A situation, event, fact. 
 These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry.
•  An observation, fact, evidence 
  The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, 
•  BF1. A judgement, opinion, belief, evidence 
but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.
•  A judgement, opinion, belief.  
Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
•  An expectation, claim, belief.  
  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. 
•  Main conclusion, claim, belief.

Question stem Analysis 
In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
 This is a typical boldface question in which we need to analyze what roles the BF parts play.

Prethinking

BF1

Judgement/belief
Relation with main conclusion/BF2- Supporting the Main conclusion/BF2

BF2

Belief, claim
Main conclusion- Supported by BF1.

Option Analysis

(A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.
 The first does not present a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation. The second part is the main conclusion. Hence this option is incorrect. (BF1 incorrect, BF2 correct)

(B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
 The first does not acknowledge anything against the conclusion. Event though BF2 is the Main conclusion, this option in incorrect. (BF1 incorrect, BF2 correct)

(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
 The first is not an acknowledgment against the argument. The second does not provide evidence. It is the main conclusion itself. (BF1 incorrect, BF2 incorrect)

(D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
 The first part is correct. BF1 provides evidence in support of the main conclusion. But the second is not a consideration against the main conclusion. This option is therefore incorrect. (BF1 correct, BF2 incorrect)

(E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion 
This option is in line with the Prethinking. BF1 is a judgement and it supports the main conclusion. The second BF is the Main conclusion.
The correct answer is E.

Namangupta1997 · Answer

Hi  AndrewN

How is BF1  supporting  the conclusion? Whether the fragments contain Sulphur has no bearing on how big they were. I straightway eliminated E using that logic. What did I miss ?

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Namangupta1997 . It might help to think of this one in pictorial terms. Imagine what the astronomer, the author/speaker of contents of the passage, is hoping to argue, regarding the presence of  unprecedented traces of sulfur  found in  Jupiter's outer atmosphere... after the fragments' entry .

Phase 1: COMET APPROACHING

/C\
OME
\T/
⇣
---------------------------------------------

outer atmosphere

---------------------------------------------
cloud layer (believed to contain  sulfur )
---------------------------------------------

Phase 2: IMPACT

/C\
OME
\T/
----------------------⇣----------------------
␥⏚⑊
outer atmosphere (comet fragments)
␥␥␥⑊⑊⑊
---------------------⇣ ⇡ ----------------------
cloud layer (believed to contain  sulfur )
---------------------------------------------

Now, the argument is the second boldface (an easy way to pare down the answer choices to (B) and (E)):  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 . Why would the astronomer posit such an idea to explain the presence of such elevated  traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry ? Because  the fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur , the first boldface. Thus, we can say that the first  boldface  is used  in support of the conclusion of the argument . This  judgment , as the answer choice labels it, rules out the alternative explanation that the comet itself, even in fragmented form, introduced the sulfur to the outer atmosphere.

Perhaps the question makes more sense now. (I love schematics.) Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Namangupta1997 · Answer

Thanks  AndrewN . Always been a huge fan and admirer of your amazing explanations!

AndrewN · Answer

I appreciate the compliment,  Namangupta1997 . Perhaps because I rely so heavily on my visual memory, and I also happen to enjoy reading about astronomy, this question just clicked for me. My timing tends to be slowest on CR questions, but I answered this one with confidence in a little over a minute. That is just the luck of the draw. I had a lot of fun putting together that little visual above. If it benefits you and the larger community, so much the better.

- Andrew

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards