Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows

Question

Try and see if you could get this right.

================================

Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: on Earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens'-methane-producing bacteria. But there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets, for example. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials also. Which of the following is true of this argument?

A) It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.

B) Since this argument appeals to no analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.

C) This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.

D) The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if on-site explorations of other planets in our solar system were to reveal the existence of methanogenic bacteria there.

E) It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica, without bacterial action, at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.

Paul · Answer

I would go with A
A would ensure that it is the process which is same on the Earth and on the comet.
C is rejected because we do not need the "explanation" about the process. All we need is that there is such a process going on.

dushver · Answer

I would go with C.
As in stem, the methane (effect) is the because of Methanogens (cause). Since in comets we have methane in comets therefore methanogens should be present, which is incomplete. It needs some more evidence to support.

Dharmin · Answer

A should be it. meagar in force and trying to substantiate the conclusion by analogy.

In my humble Opinion, C can't be right bcoz the explanation of the process by which terrestrial-bacteria produces meathane wont be helpful to argument that talks about extra-terrestrial bacteria presence.

:btw

whats the OA ?

Dharmin

whats the OA ? Dharmin

hardworker_indian · Answer

C.

D and E are out. D actually strenghens and E actaully weakens.
A is out, because if a bacteria-alternative is responsible for methane, it can be stated for other materials too. Without explanation, more examples doesn't help the conclusion.

Between, B and C, I chose C since the process of synthesis might give a clue about bacteria-alternative or bacteria presence and why the conclusion was arrived.

stuti · Answer

Tough choice between A and C. But I go for A. Two reasons:

C- explanation of process not necessary, that too how terrestrial bacteria synthesize. Also the wordings of the statement seem a tad too strong

A- if it can be shown that there are other extra terrestrial objects found which have such bacterial action it corroborates the assumption that methane causing bacteria could actually be present outside of earth

Whats the OA?

carsen · Answer

Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows:

Premise - on Earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens'-methane-producing bacteria.

Evidence - But there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets, for example.

Conclusion - Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials also.

Which of the following is true of this argument? - (We need to find the inference.) - we have to note that it is not the author who argues, but it is Hoyle.

A) It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action. - Very close (can pull the user to click on this one)

B) Since this argument appeals to no analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane. - Out of scope- Cannot be infered from the premise or evidence.

C) This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane. - Very close

D) The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if on-site explorations of other planets in our solar system were to reveal the existence of methanogenic bacteria there. - Bingo. the author can prove Hoyle is wrong is this can be proved.

E) It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica, without bacterial action, at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system. - Out of scope- Cannot be infered from the premise or evidence.

Whats the OA, whats the OA :roll:

sdanquah · Answer

Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: on Earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens'-methane-producing bacteria. But there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets, for example. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials also. Which of the following is true of this argument? 

A) It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.  Possible answer 

B) Since this argument appeals to no analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane. 

C) This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.  We don't need the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesis nethane to conclude that methanogens are present there.  

D) The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if on-site explorations of other planets in our solar system were to reveal the existence of methanogenic bacteria there.  This will strenghten his argument 

E) It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica, without bacterial action, at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.  This will weeken the argument 
By POE, eliminate D and E, because D s

intr3pid · Answer

C appears to be the best answer.

The trick to analyzing this CR is to bare it down to its bones:

(1) On earth, methane goes hand in hand with methanogens (bacteria).
(2) We found methane in extraterrestrial (ET) objects, i.e. comets.
(3) Thus, there must be methanogens in the ET objects.

Here's how the choices (A) and (C) fare:

(A) says: Argument is supported because we found ethane (associated with ethanogens on earth) in ET objects.

Wrong. If no bacteria exists in the ET objects, we may still get the same results. Why? Because, what if the bacterial action is associated with compounds only on earth? Keep doing the experiments, and you'll keep getting the same results. Try alcohol, colestrol, tomato ketchup....

OK, so how about you instead first analyze what it is that associates bacteria with these compounds on earth? Perhaps if you can explain to me that the association is independent of the earth's atmosphere and can exist anywhere in the universe, I'm more willing to listen. Which is what (C) does.

Here's the revised structure:

(i) On earth, methane <=> methanogens.
(ii) In ET objects, we found methane.
(iii) Methane is proven to associate with methanogens anywhere in the universe.
(iv) Thus, ET objects contain methanogens.

No. (iii) is what (C) attempts to identify. So, (C) is the best answer.

intr3pid · Answer

Because, as they say, when in doubt, pick C.

After all, isn't E reserved for all-of-the-aboves?

hardworker_indian · Answer

Anyway, it would be interesting to see OA. I just wanted to generalize this CR. I have seen many questions where: To justify a phenomenon, a parallel (and equally junk) phenomenon will be introduced, which ends up being a trap. Unless either of them are "explained", the phenomenon cannot not justified.

carsen · Answer

Hi Lawrence

Can u please post the Official Answer for this.

Thanks bro.

Phoenix72 · Answer

IMO C. honestly still juggling between A & C....

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Another of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows

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