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

 It is currently 22 Apr 2019, 05:41

### 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

# Despite advances in geothermal technology and equipment

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 82
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2017, 22:21
2
6
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (02:43) correct 59% (02:39) wrong based on 245 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Despite advances in geothermal technology and equipment, experts rarely agree which method is the best indicator of a likely source of oil. Some believe the cycle of environmental changes determines the primary sources for crude oil, while others look to the evolution of organic matter as the most significant indicator. What they do agree on however, is where oil won’t be found. They agree that in areas that were scraped clean of organic sedimentary deposits by glaciers during the last million years or so, the biological “ingredients” that they believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas are not present. That is, where glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the geologists’ view?

A. Relatively little of the earth’s surface is known to rest above the sort of organic sedimentary deposits described above.

B. Despite the existence of permanent glaciers, oil has been found at both the North and South Poles.

C. There are too many variables for experts to be able to identify what does and does not need to be present for the formation of oil.

D. The glacier theory cannot help locate oil in the ocean since ocean beds went untouched by glaciers.

E. Oil deposits of non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth, and are brought nearer to the surface by cracks in the crust.
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 120

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2017, 01:12
I am confused between B and E

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
_________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't stop when you are tired , stop when you are DONE .
Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 82
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2017, 01:34
2
The argument states that scientists agree on the conditions under which oil definitely won't be found.

The conditions include:

1. "areas that were scraped clean of organic sedimentary deposits by glaciers during the last million years or so"
2. "the biological “ingredients” that scientists believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas are not present"

Basically, the argument's conclusion is that wherever glaciers have cleared up the organic stuff, you cannot find any oil deposits.

Option E says that even non-biological (or non organic) stuff can result in oil deposits. Hence, Option E weakens the conclusion.

Option B does not address the root of the problem (i.e absence of non-organic stuff). While it does say that oil was found in presence of glaciers, it does not conclusively indicate that no organic stuff was present. Bottom line is that you must look at the absence/presence of organic sediments and only presence of glaciers is not sufficient.
Manager
Joined: 11 Feb 2017
Posts: 188

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2017, 05:57
fmik7894 wrote:
The argument states that scientists agree on the conditions under which oil definitely won't be found.

The conditions include:

1. "areas that were scraped clean of organic sedimentary deposits by glaciers during the last million years or so"
2. "the biological “ingredients” that scientists believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas are not present"

Basically, the argument's conclusion is that wherever glaciers have cleared up the organic stuff, you cannot find any oil deposits.

Option E says that even non-biological (or non organic) stuff can result in oil deposits. Hence, Option E weakens the conclusion.

Option B does not address the root of the problem (i.e absence of non-organic stuff). While it does say that oil was found in presence of glaciers, it does not conclusively indicate that no organic stuff was present. Bottom line is that you must look at the absence/presence of organic sediments and only presence of glaciers is not sufficient.

how to eliminate D and C????

Current Student
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 35
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.29

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 10:54
Conclusion - Area clean of organic sedimentary by glacier will not have oil.
Based on 2 theory.
Theory 1 - Environmental change determines oil presence. Glaciers is the environmental factor here.
Theory 2 - Organic matter determines oil presence. No organic matter present here.

E - Oil can be generated by non-organic matter and brought to surface by cracks. Breaks the linkage of both theories with the conclusion.
C- winning about less data is never right way to argue on GMAT
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 181

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 06:04
I am still confused why E is the right answer. Maybe I am not able to understand how E weakens the geologists view. please help
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2016
Posts: 77
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
GRE 1: Q163 V154
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 10:16
pra1785 wrote:
I am still confused why E is the right answer. Maybe I am not able to understand how E weakens the geologists view. please help

I understand from your query that you've eliminated all other answers, and eliminated E as well. And wonder why is E correct.
So with this understanding of your query, let me try explain:

Argument says:
They (experts ) agree that in areas that were scraped clean of organic sedimentary deposits by glaciers ..., the biological “ingredients” that they believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas are not present .

Focus on 2 things experts say:
- biological ingredients are not present if glacier cleaned the landmass where this biological ingredients are present.
- No biological ingredients, no oil and gas.
Experts conclude extremely that : "where glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found."

Lets see what E says:
Quote:
Oil deposits of non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth, and are brought nearer to the surface by cracks in the crust.

Ohh, so even if glaciers scoured the landmass, the oil from non-biological origin is present under the crust of the earth. Moreover, these oil deposits are brought to the surface by cracks in the crust.
So effectively attacking the conclusion of the experts. E doesn't say that the oil deposits are brought to the surface of earth which is covered with glaciers, but that it may happen.

Does E makes sense now?
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Posts: 22

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 05:53
Isnt option E too strong by saying "non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth".

I felt option B does it well by saying, eventhough there are ice-glaciers at the poles, they could still host the ingredients of the curde oil.

Is this reasoning correct.?

_________________
Regards,
Sarugiri
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2016
Posts: 77
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
GRE 1: Q163 V154
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 06:30
1
sarugiri wrote:
Isnt option E too strong by saying "non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth".

I felt option B does it well by saying, eventhough there are ice-glaciers at the poles, they could still host the ingredients of the curde oil.

Is this reasoning correct.?

Hi!

Now I wont say the reasoning is incorrect, but it is neither correct. It is Partial
Conclusion says that "where glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found because the "biological" ingredients are not present".

See what B is stating:
B. Despite the existence of permanent glaciers, oil has been found at both the North and South Poles.

What you have interpreted:
eventhough there are ice-glaciers at the poles, they could still host the ingredients of the curde oil.

Which ingredients? B doesn't clarify this point.
B does say that oil was found in presence of glaciers,we can't interpret that no organic stuff was present.
That is why B is incorrect.

Makes sense?
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Posts: 22

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 07:23
Thank you AkshayKS21, now I got it.
_________________
Regards,
Sarugiri
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1018
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 11:01
fmik7894 wrote:
Despite advances in geothermal technology and equipment, experts rarely agree which method is the best indicator of a likely source of oil. Some believe the cycle of environmental changes determines the primary sources for crude oil, while others look to the evolution of organic matter as the most significant indicator. What they do agree on however, is where oil won’t be found. They agree that in areas that were scraped clean of organic sedimentary deposits by glaciers during the last million years or so, the biological “ingredients” that they believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas are not present. That is, where glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the geologists’ view?

A. Relatively little of the earth’s surface is known to rest above the sort of organic sedimentary deposits described above.

B. Despite the existence of permanent glaciers, oil has been found at both the North and South Poles.

C. There are too many variables for experts to be able to identify what does and does not need to be present for the formation of oil.

D. The glacier theory cannot help locate oil in the ocean since ocean beds went untouched by glaciers.
w
E. Oil deposits of non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth, and are brought nearer to the surface by cracks in the crust.

The argument says that oil and gas are found where there was biological activity but when this not true oil is found where there is no biological activity then the conclusion drawn by the argument falls.

_________________
Re: Despite advances in geothermal technology and equipment   [#permalink] 10 Aug 2017, 11:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by