Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 24 Mar 2017, 14:57

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in

You may select 1 option
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [2] , given: 9

Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 12:18
2
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (03:14) correct 43% (02:06) wrong based on 287 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by doe007 on 14 May 2013, 21:49, edited 2 times in total.
Topic name updated
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [1] , given: 9

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 21:47
1
KUDOS

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
Status: Back to work...
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 4205
Location: India
City: Pune
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 418

Kudos [?]: 3037 [0], given: 2256

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 13:46
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
_________________
MBA Section Director
Status: Back to work...
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 4205
Location: India
City: Pune
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 418

Kudos [?]: 3037 [0], given: 2256

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 22:56
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
_________________
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 6

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 07:08
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: 162
Location: Poland
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 67

Re: Because there are no habitable planets... [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2013, 04:44
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!

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10668
Followers: 957

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2014, 23:28
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2377
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 291 [0], given: 147

Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 19:25
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.
Re: Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in   [#permalink] 11 Apr 2016, 19:25
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
As far as we know, Earth is the only planet on which life 1 30 May 2009, 22:27
1 A recession is not caused by any economic force other than a 10 19 Feb 2009, 18:28
22 The restaurant business wastes more energy than any other 67 07 Aug 2008, 05:27
Can anybody suggest best CR study guide other than OG and 6 13 Aug 2007, 06:48
In many languages other than English there is a word for 3 02 Jun 2007, 21:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by