CR: Intelligent life : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 Feb 2017, 20:12

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

CR: Intelligent life

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 148
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 21 [1] , given: 0

Show Tags

05 Feb 2008, 04:17
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (03:48) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as “intelligent life.” Yet we cannot just decide to define “intelligent life” in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.

The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?

(A) The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is one that will never be correctly answered.
(B) Whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, our understanding of intelligent life is limited.
(C) The question about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe must be made more precise if we hope to answer it correctly.
(D) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is so imprecise as to be meaningless.
(E) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one we should not spend our time trying to answer.

The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:

(A) showing the claim to be irrelevant to the issue at hand
(B) citing examples that fail to fit proposed definition of “intelligent life”
(C) claiming that “intelligent life” cannot be adequately defined
(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive
(E) maintaining that the claim is not supported by the available evidence

Can anybody explain pls?
_________________

Neelabh Mahesh

If you have any questions
New!
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3589
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 556

Kudos [?]: 3678 [1] , given: 360

Show Tags

05 Feb 2008, 04:44
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from us something might be and still count as “intelligent life.” Yet we cannot just decide to define “intelligent life” in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.

The passage concludes: we cannot define “intelligent life” in some more precise way and we will find intelligent life only if we leave our definitions open.

The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?

(A) The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is one that will never be correctly answered. - irrelevant to the conclusion
(B) Whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, our understanding of intelligent life is limited. - the passage does not object to this.
(C) The question about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe must be made more precise if we hope to answer it correctly. - the best.
(D) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is so imprecise as to be meaningless. - irrelevant
(E) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one we should not spend our time trying to answer. - irrelevant to the conclusion

The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:

(A) showing the claim to be irrelevant to the issue at hand - irrelevant
(B) citing examples that fail to fit proposed definition of “intelligent life” - irrelevant. there are no examples
(C) claiming that “intelligent life” cannot be adequately defined - the best
(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive - tricky. but "if acted on" does not fit the passage.
(E) maintaining that the claim is not supported by the available evidence - irrelevant
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 114
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

05 Feb 2008, 06:38
agree with Walker on the first question: C it is

for the second, I think the answer should be D. the reason being:

the author is not challenging the claim by saying we 'cannot adequately define intelligent life'. He is saying that if we do narrow down the definition then we might fail to 'find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe'. So, if we 'act on' the claim of narrowing the definitation we fail to identify intelligent life.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 792
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

06 Feb 2008, 03:16
The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?

Conclusion: we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
Objection to “precise definition of intelligent life”

(A) The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is one that will never be correctly answered.[Out of scope of the argument – eliminate it]

(B) Whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, our understanding of intelligent life is limited.[This is a good candidate for the support of the conclusion. But, for the object of the argument, we require answer choice that amplifies precise definition need – eliminate it]

(C) The question about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe must be made more precise if we hope to answer it correctly.[Hold it]

(D) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is so imprecise as to be meaningless.[Out of scope – eliminate it]

(E) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one we should not spend our time trying to answer.[What to spend time is not the purpose of the passage – eliminate it]

The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:
if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim :

we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we precisely define intelligent life definition.

The one that challenges this claim amplifies it is counterproductive to re-define the Intelligent life definition.

(A) showing the claim to be irrelevant to the issue at hand [Not at all – eliminate it]

(B) citing examples that fail to fit proposed definition of “intelligent life”[This is counter object to antecedent objection claim – that is it is the one that directly supports object to antecedent claim – eliminate it]

(C) claiming that “intelligent life” cannot be adequately defined [Not really – we already defined precise intelligent life definition - eliminate it]

(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive [ This is the one – we already defined precise intelligent life definition – Hold it]

(E) maintaining that the claim is not supported by the available evidence [out of scope – eliminate it]

CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2756
Location: New York City
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 884 [0], given: 4

Show Tags

06 Feb 2008, 07:03
hanumayamma wrote:
The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?

Conclusion: we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
Objection to “precise definition of intelligent life”

(A) The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is one that will never be correctly answered.[Out of scope of the argument – eliminate it]

(B) Whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, our understanding of intelligent life is limited.[This is a good candidate for the support of the conclusion. But, for the object of the argument, we require answer choice that amplifies precise definition need – eliminate it]

(C) The question about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe must be made more precise if we hope to answer it correctly.[Hold it]

(D) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is so imprecise as to be meaningless.[Out of scope – eliminate it]

(E) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one we should not spend our time trying to answer.[What to spend time is not the purpose of the passage – eliminate it]

The passage, if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim, challenges that claim by:
if seen as an objection to an antecedent claim :

we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we precisely define intelligent life definition.

The one that challenges this claim amplifies it is counterproductive to re-define the Intelligent life definition.

(A) showing the claim to be irrelevant to the issue at hand [Not at all – eliminate it]

(B) citing examples that fail to fit proposed definition of “intelligent life”[This is counter object to antecedent objection claim – that is it is the one that directly supports object to antecedent claim – eliminate it]

(C) claiming that “intelligent life” cannot be adequately defined [Not really – we already defined precise intelligent life definition - eliminate it]

(D) arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive [ This is the one – we already defined precise intelligent life definition – Hold it]

(E) maintaining that the claim is not supported by the available evidence [out of scope – eliminate it]

hmmm. i think D is too strong to say that it is counterproductive. we need to stick close to the passage and C does that
_________________

You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'. -Homer Simpson

Re: CR: Intelligent life   [#permalink] 06 Feb 2008, 07:03
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 All intelligent people are nearsighted 3 13 Feb 2017, 05:08
6 Only if the electorate is moral and intelligent will a 12 28 May 2010, 05:58
LSAT - Intelligent Life 12 26 Jun 2009, 23:10
CR intelligent life 7 12 Jan 2008, 01:51
LSAT CR: Intelligent life 4 12 Apr 2007, 06:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by