GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Feb 2019, 16:36

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

February 20, 2019

February 20, 2019

08:00 PM EST

09:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. Wednesday, February 20th at 8 PM EST
• ### Online GMAT boot camp for FREE

February 21, 2019

February 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Kick off your 2019 GMAT prep with a free 7-day boot camp that includes free online lessons, webinars, and a full GMAT course access. Limited for the first 99 registrants! Feb. 21st until the 27th.

# Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in

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

You may select 1 option
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 48
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 14 May 2013, 20:49
2
9
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (02:35) correct 40% (02:51) wrong based on 553 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

Originally posted by anish123ster on 08 May 2013, 11:18.
Last edited by doe007 on 14 May 2013, 20:49, edited 2 times in total.
Topic name updated
MBA Section Director
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 6050
City: Pune
Re: Because there are no habitable planets...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 12:46
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, thatevery planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. Andrelatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.

C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.

D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.

E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

Dear Anish,

An request to you is, do post your questions along with OA's

In your question, Answer should be between A and C (A is my take)

Premise 1 :- Humans have basic needs to survive - Food, Air, Water
Premise 2 :- Relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells
Conclusion :- human beings do not need to live on planets.

To weaken the conclusion we need to consider other side of the story. Apart from Food, water, and Air, is there any other condition that forcing humans to stay on the planet?

Counter Premise :- Planet takes considerable energy from gravity wells to lower People and Material to the bottom in good working condition.

Above Counter premise siting that condition. So The choice that would consistent with above premise would weaken the conclusion.

A) This is true and consistent with counter premise.

B) Shell Game Answer. Comparison is not between Earth and Asteroid Belts. It is between Planets (that are under gravity wells) and Asteroid belts (not under gravity wells).

C) Contender

D) Irrelevant

E) Irrelevant

Between A and C, C makes a general statement about limitations of Humans for living beyond gravitational fields, Whereas A provides a specific limitation i.e. Acceleration would be the factor prohibit Humans live on the Asteroid Belts

So i would go with A

Regards,

Narenn
_________________

Starts from Feb 4th: MBA Video Series, Video answers to specific components and questions about the MBA application.

Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 48
Re: Because there are no habitable planets...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 20:47
1

Reason

It is important to first identify the conclusion drawn by the passage. Here, the author concludes that human beings may not need to live on planets. Thus, an answer that challenges this conclusion or an argument on which it is based would weaken the author’s finding. (C) is the credited response since it directly attacks the author’s conclusion by establishing that humans may need to live in an environment with strong gravitational fields (such as planets).

(A) is incorrect.

(A) is incorrect because it does not necessarily challenge the author’s premise since “most” individuals may be able to remain on Earth while others colonize asteroids or other planets.

(B) is incorrect.

(B) does not preclude colonization of other interstellar bodies, since the necessary elements may be capable of transportation with the colonists.

(D) is incorrect.

(D) is irrelevant to the passage, the conclusion, and the premises on which it is based.

(E) is incorrect.

(E) is incorrect, since whether asteroids are exploited by colonists or descendants of colonists is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion that humans may not need to live on planets.

_________________

giving kudos is the best thing you can do for me..

MBA Section Director
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 6050
City: Pune
Re: Because there are no habitable planets...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 21:56
anish123ster wrote:
A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.

Yeah Anish,

The difference was of Most and All

Thanks,

Narenn
_________________

Starts from Feb 4th: MBA Video Series, Video answers to specific components and questions about the MBA application.

Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 19
Re: Because there are no habitable planets...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 06:08
If the conclusion states that human beings do not need to live on planets, then answer C makes the most sense because it mentions that ALL of human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
The correct answer should explain why Humans CANNOT leave planets. This answer C would weaken to conclusion. I think A would weaken as well but not as much as C. I missed the wording so I picked A at first but I think C is correct. What is the official right answer?
Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 151
Location: Poland
Re: Because there are no habitable planets...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2013, 03:44
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

Let's stick to the highlighted conclusion.
A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
Is acceleration the issue here?
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
Can the elements not be provided outside the Earth?
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
The gravity fields exist only on planets and human beings need gravity fields to live.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
Irrelevant.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.
Out of scope.
_________________

If I answered your question with this post, use the motivating power of kudos!

Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2587
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 18:25
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

i easily reached the answer by POE.
1. strengthens the argument
2. looks like a strengthener so no.
3. aha, people can't live without gravity so definitely a weakener.
4. how long it will take is out of scope.
5. who will exploit the resources is out of scope.

C it is.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 345
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2017, 00:16
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

NO habitable planet + Incapability to reach other planet => human will not colonized outer space
it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition.
Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets. Human can live on The asteroid belt.

Pre-thinking :-
1. Ok, water is available there. But what about capability to reach those asteroids.
2. What if there is some other conditions that are prohibiting us to live in asteroid.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.

I find A,B,E very close.
A => if Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells, then how will they reach to Asteriods. They need a mechanism. From the premises we don't know about this availability.

B=> if Minute amounts of trace elements are available only on Earth are required for human subsistence and not at asteriods, then our conclusion stands invalid. We only know about "abundant metals from which to build shelter" we don't know about trace elements.

C is of course correct.
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1038
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2017, 23:59
anish123ster wrote:
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

Hi Experts ,
B sates that minute amounts of trace elements that are available only on earth are required fro human subsistence .
Does it not weaken the conclusion ?
If those elements are found only on the earth then it would not be possible to leave earth and live elsewhere.

Please explain what is wrong with my reasoning .
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 232
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2018, 07:22
MartyMurray

Why cant B be a weakener. Doesn't B give a strong reason to live on planet?
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 417
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2018, 12:43
Prateek176 wrote:
Why cant B be a weakener. Doesn't B give a strong reason to live on planet?

First of all, this question is pretty weak, as the passage never really makes clear that the idea that it is discussing is human's inhabiting asteroids.

Regarding your specific question, B is not a clear weakener, because conceivably the substances found only on Earth could be transported to the asteroids.

Contrast B with C, which makes clear that living on asteroids is essentially out of the question.
_________________

Marty Murray
Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

GMAT Quant Self-Study Course
500+ lessons 3000+ practice problems 800+ HD solutions

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2018, 12:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in

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

 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®.