ruturajp 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
Similar question from GMATPrep:
LINK SOLUTIONPassage AnalysisAstronomer: 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, evidencebut 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 AnalysisIn 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.PrethinkingBF1Judgement/belief
Relation with main conclusion/BF2- Supporting the Main conclusion/BF2
BF2Belief, 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 conclusionThis 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.
_________________