It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 07:58

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

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

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 11 [3], given: 9

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2017, 11:17
3
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (02:02) correct 36% (02:06) wrong based on 132 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. 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 consideration 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.

Similar question from GMATPrep: LINK
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Appreciate my post with Kudos if it is helpful :thumbup:
All the best for your prep :)


Last edited by broall on 21 Aug 2017, 08:13, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 11 [3], given: 9

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2017, 15:15
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. -The author doesn't want to prove the first claim correct.

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. -The author doesn't want to prove the first claim correct.

C. The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument. -Correct. Both are just fact sets.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion. -Second is not the 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. -Second statement is not a negative statement
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision   [#permalink] 24 Aug 2017, 15:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.