Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jun 0408:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare.
Jun 0401:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Jun 0612:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
Jun 0803:00 PM PDT
-04:00 PM PDT
15 Full-length GMAT FE mocks with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!- Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
03 Jun 2026, 22:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
75% (02:06) correct
25%
(02:30)
wrong
based on 4
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. 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 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 false; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs in favor of the truth of that claim.
C. The first reports observations that the astronomer argues have certain implications; the second is one of those implications.
D. The first introduces the issue that the argument addresses; the second is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
E. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
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 false; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs in favor of the truth of that claim.
C. The first reports observations that the astronomer argues have certain implications; the second is one of those implications.
D. The first introduces the issue that the argument addresses; the second is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
E. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
03 Jun 2026, 22:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
AbhishekP220108
Similar questions to practice:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/astronomer-o ... 47582.html (GMAT Prep Classic)
https://gmatclub.com/forum/astronomer-o ... 44505.html (GMAT Prep Classic)
04 Jun 2026, 00:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Collisions broke the comet into fragments but how big those fragments were, no idea about that.
To find the actual size, they studied the jupiters outer atmosphere. Analyses found unprecedented traces of sulfur. But fragments had no sulfur. But astronomers believed that cloud layer below outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. So sulfur would have entered into outer atmosphere when fragments penetrated into this cloud layer.
So this fragments were large enough to have passed through outer atmosphere without being burned up
BF 1=: 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
BF 2 = The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur
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.
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.
First is not claim they want to show is true and Second is not against the claim mentioned in first part. Reject.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is false; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs in favor of the truth of that claim.
astronomers doesnt want to prove that this wrong. rather they want to solve that mystery. Out.
C. The first reports observations that the astronomer argues have certain implications; the second is one of those implications.
first is not saying that there are some implications and neither does the second shows any of those implication. Reject.
D. The first introduces the issue that the argument addresses; the second is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
Yes, first is issue and the arguments is based on addressing it. Second is a judgement and bases on that they made certain discoveries/assumption that leads to conclusion. So this both are perfect.
E. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
First is not evidence in support of conclusion at all. Reject.
To find the actual size, they studied the jupiters outer atmosphere. Analyses found unprecedented traces of sulfur. But fragments had no sulfur. But astronomers believed that cloud layer below outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. So sulfur would have entered into outer atmosphere when fragments penetrated into this cloud layer.
So this fragments were large enough to have passed through outer atmosphere without being burned up
BF 1=: 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
BF 2 = The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur
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.
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.
First is not claim they want to show is true and Second is not against the claim mentioned in first part. Reject.
B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is false; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs in favor of the truth of that claim.
astronomers doesnt want to prove that this wrong. rather they want to solve that mystery. Out.
C. The first reports observations that the astronomer argues have certain implications; the second is one of those implications.
first is not saying that there are some implications and neither does the second shows any of those implication. Reject.
D. The first introduces the issue that the argument addresses; the second is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
Yes, first is issue and the arguments is based on addressing it. Second is a judgement and bases on that they made certain discoveries/assumption that leads to conclusion. So this both are perfect.
E. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
First is not evidence in support of conclusion at all. Reject.
AbhishekP220108
