Astronomer: Observations of the ShoemakerLevi comet on its collision

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. 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?

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.

Bunuel · Answer

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)

vasu1104 · Answer

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.

MartyMurray · 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. 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?

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

In answering a Boldface question, it's key to note any conclusions in the passage, particularly the main conclusion, if there is one.

In this case, the main conclusion is the following:

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

Having identified that conclusion, we can then consider how the other parts of the passage, including the boldfaced portions, relate to it.

We see that the first boldfaced portion introduces the question of the size of the fragments, which the conclusion answers, and the second helps to support the main conclusion.

Now, set up with this understanding, we can evaluate the answer choices.

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 first is not "a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true" but rather is stated by the astronomer as a fact that is presumed true without the astronomer seeking to show that it is.

Also, the second does not weight against the first. After all, the fact that the fragments almost certainly contained no sulfur does not weight against the idea that observations of the fragments did not show how big the fragments were.

Eliminate.

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.

The first is not "a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is false" but rather is stated by the astronomer as a true fact.

Also, the second does not weigh in favor of the first. After all, the fact that the fragments almost certainly contained no sulfur does not support the idea that observations of the fragments did not show how big the fragments were.

Eliminate.

C. The first reports observations that the astronomer argues have certain implications; the second is one of those implications.

The astronomer does not argue that the fact that the observations did not show how big the fragments were has any implications. Rather, the astronomer's argument focuses on implications of the fact that spectrographic analyses "revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur" after the fragments’ entry.

Also, the second part of this choice is clearly incorrect because the fact that the fragments almost certainly contained no sulfur is not an implication of the fact that the observations did not indicate how big the fragments were.

Eliminate.

D. The first introduces the issue that the argument addresses; the second is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

This choice matches well our above analysis of the roles of the two boldfaced portions.

The first introduces the issue of the size of the fragments by saying that the observations "did not show how big those fragments were."

The second supports the conclusion that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up by indicating that the observed traces of sulfur must have come from the underlying cloud layer and not from the fragments themselves.

Keep

E. 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 of this choice is incorrect because the fact that the observations did not show how big the fragments were does not support the conclusion that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

Also, the second boldfaced portion does not weight against the conclusion but rather supports it.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   D

guddo · 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. 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?

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The argument is trying to determine the size of the comet fragments. The first boldface introduces that issue: observations showed fragmentation but not fragment size. The second boldface supports the conclusion by ruling out the fragments themselves as the source of the sulfur.  So the sulfur likely came from the lower cloud layer , meaning some fragments were large enough to reach that layer without burning up.

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.

This is incorrect. The first boldface is not something the astronomer tries to prove; it sets up the issue. The second does not weigh against it.

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.

This is incorrect. The astronomer does not try to disprove the first boldface.

C. The first reports observations that the astronomer argues have certain implications; the second is one of those implications.

This is incorrect. The second boldface is not an implication of the first. It is a separate premise used to support the final conclusion.

D. The first introduces the issue that the argument addresses; the second is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

This is correct. The first introduces the uncertainty about fragment size. The second supports the conclusion by showing that the sulfur probably did not come from the fragments themselves, but from  inside Jupiter’s atmosphere .

E. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

This is incorrect. The first mainly introduces the issue, and the second supports the conclusion rather than weakening it.

Answer: (D)

Astronomer: Observations of the ShoemakerLevi comet on its collision

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 ShoemakerLevi comet on its collision

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