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

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 12:09

### 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

# BoldFace12

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1120 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2008, 19:12
12. 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?

F. 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.
G. 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.
H. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
I. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
J. 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.

I lost somewhere!
_________________
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 240
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2008, 19:29
sondenso wrote:
12. 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?

F. 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.
G. 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.
H. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
I. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
J. 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.

I lost somewhere!

Choice is between G and H.

For G, The first boldface is ok, but the second does not entirely tie with the first. The second boldface is not really the evidence, but something of an explanation that the astronomer is trying to build towards the final conclusion.

I would go with H as the both the boldfaces both provide information that culminates in the conclusion that "that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up"

Last edited by Sunny143 on 05 Jun 2008, 19:46, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 943
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 302 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2008, 19:37
Premise1: 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.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.
Premise2: After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.
Premise3: The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.
Premise4 (This also acts as an sub-conclusion): 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.

First one does seem to be a claim that astronomers seeks to be true to F, and G is out.
H. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
Seems OK to me.
I. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
First supports the main conclusion not the sub conclusion.
J. 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 one is not consideration against astronomer. It is supporting it.

So I will go with H
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 240
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2008, 17:51
Wats the OA?
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 240
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2008, 21:38
knock knock....wats the OA buddy?
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1120 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2008, 00:30
OA is C
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 384
Location: Azerbaijan
Concentration: Finance
Schools: HEC '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 354 [0], given: 73

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2011, 09:48
imho the answ is C.
all bold texts are just considerations, that are need to make a conclusion about the size of fragments
_________________

Happy are those who dream dreams and are ready to pay the price to make them come true

I am still on all gmat forums. msg me if you want to ask me smth

Re: BoldFace12   [#permalink] 27 Sep 2011, 09:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by