Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:30 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:30
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
805+ Level|   Assumption|         
User avatar
Suyash1331
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jul 2023
Last visit: 20 Oct 2025
Posts: 118
Own Kudos:
61
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70
GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34
GPA: 7
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70
GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34
Posts: 118
Kudos: 61
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 10:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[*]B: Correct. If other techniques are present then the conclusion cannot be drawn.
[*]A: Irrelevant. The argument is about detectability, not data quality or atmospheric details.
[*]C: May be true, but doesn’t justify the leap to only nearby exoplanets being detectable.
[*]D: Suggests a reason why stable stars are rare but isn’t required to draw the conclusion.
[*]E: Weakens the argument by introducing exceptions — not something the conclusion depends on.
User avatar
AviNFC
User avatar
Joined: 31 May 2023
Last visit: 13 Nov 2025
Posts: 216
Own Kudos:
288
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 216
Kudos: 288
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 10:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. Detection methods are Irrelevant
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles Detection Methods are Irrelevant
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself. Already said about the role of host star in obtaining reliable signal
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. Correct. If they are equally same or more, then the numbers wouldn't be few.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals. While some may fail, some other few may still produce.

Ans D
User avatar
kvaishvik24
User avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2025
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
65
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 81
Kudos: 65
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 10:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
  • Out of scope : the argument is about detecting planets, not about analyzing atmospheres.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles.
  • If only these two indirect methods work and they require stable stars, then only direct observation (for close planets) would work .This assumption makes the conclusion logically follow.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
  • The argument doesn't compare the importance of star vs. planet characteristics.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.

  • This would strengthen the conclusion but isn't necessary to make it logically follow
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
  • Weakens the conclusion, also goes against the logic that stable stars are enough for indirect methods.
User avatar
Raome
User avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 109
Own Kudos:
30
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
Posts: 109
Kudos: 30
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 10:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Negated sentences-

A. Indirect detection methods are less more reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. - Reliability is not asked
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles - alternate methods are irrelevant
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more less on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.- Correct. Directly weakens
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less more common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. - This comparison is not mentioned
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals. - out of scope
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
bart08241192
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
64
 [1]
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 75
Kudos: 64
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 10:50
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion:
Since indirect detection methods only work when the star's light is stable and consistent, and most exoplanets are too far away to observe directly, "few exoplanets can produce detectable signals unless they're close enough to observe directly."

Premise:
a. Most known exoplanets are too far from Earth to be identified directly; indirect methods (like starlight distortion, gravitational wobble) are needed.
b. These indirect methods only produce reliable signal data when the light from the planet's host star is stable and consistent.

Assumption:
"Among all these distant exoplanets, only a small percentage orbit stars with stable light patterns."
(In other words, only a handful of planets with stable starlight can be detected, while most can't due to unstable host stars.)

Option Analysis:
A. Irrelevant to "most exoplanet atmosphere data from indirect methods is less reliable than direct observation." → Irrelevant
B. Talks about no other detection methods, not about "a few stable star planets." → Irrelevant
C. restates "signal reliability depends on host star characteristics," which is already given, not the missing assumption. → Irrelevant
D. "Fewer exoplanets orbit stars with stable light patterns than those orbiting unstable stars" — this directly supports the assumption of "low percentage of stable star planets," directly backing the conclusion "few planets can be stably detected." → BINGO
E. "Some planets around stable stars still can't be detected" — this weakens the conclusion. → Weakening
User avatar
HarshaBujji
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
885
Given Kudos: 247
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 695
Kudos: 885
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 10:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
Based on the argument, the conclusion is : Few exoplanets will produce consistently detectable signals unless they can be observed directly.
The basis for this conclusion is that Only that methods can generate reliable signal data if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time.


Prethinking : Any alternative way of exploration can shatter the conclusion, So no other way.

POE

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. So what, Irrelevant.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles. Hmm, in line with the prethinking. Hold it.
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself. So what, Irrelevant.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. Hmm hold it, it's more like a strengthner.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals. So what, Irrelevant.

Compared to B vs D, If we negate both B shatters the conclusion hence B is the perfect choice.

IMO B
User avatar
asingh22
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: India
Schools: Foster '26 (II) Goizueta '26 (S) Scheller '26 Anderson '26 Darden '26 Kelley '26 Kellogg '26 Ross '26 Sloan '26 UNC '26 (S) Stern '26 Yale '26 Haas '26 Owen '26 (II)
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q84 V78 DI82
GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q89 V80 DI78
GPA: 2.5
Products:
Forum Quiz
Schools: Foster '26 (II) Goizueta '26 (S) Scheller '26 Anderson '26 Darden '26 Kelley '26 Kellogg '26 Ross '26 Sloan '26 UNC '26 (S) Stern '26 Yale '26 Haas '26 Owen '26 (II)
GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q89 V80 DI78
Posts: 68
Kudos: 57
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 11:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We need to find why few exoplanets
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
Not relevant for the conclusion
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
Alternative method, it will not break the conclusion, is it's there any other method
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
new information, doen't support the conclusion
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
correct ans, if it's less common, then the conclusion will be true as few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
not relevant
User avatar
Gmatismybestie
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2025
Last visit: 01 Aug 2025
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
24
Given Kudos: 2
Schools: UCR '27 (S)
Schools: UCR '27 (S)
Posts: 29
Kudos: 24
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 11:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
The main conclusion of the passage above is: few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to the Earth to be observed directly.
Therefore, it is logically true if there are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from those exoplanets that too far from Earth other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles.

Answer: B
User avatar
APram
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 671
Own Kudos:
263
 [1]
Given Kudos: 240
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26 HEC INSEAD Jan '26
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q86 V78 DI76
GPA: 3.608
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: ISB '26 HEC INSEAD Jan '26
GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q86 V78 DI76
Posts: 671
Kudos: 263
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 12:12
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise: Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles
Premise: these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time
Conclusion: few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

Only stable stars -> reliable signal

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
This is irrelevant as it talks about methods and not on detection of stable stars

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
The argument already assumes that these are main methods so we cannot fill the gap by assuming premise again

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
This supports the premise but do not follow the conclusion about only few exoplanets produce reliable data

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
Yes assuming this will logically follow the premise to conclusion, if exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions then it leads to detection of few exoplanets and shows that only stable stars give reliable signal

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
This weaken the argument.

Hence D is correct
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
Dereno
User avatar
Joined: 22 May 2020
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 744
Own Kudos:
733
Given Kudos: 373
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 744
Kudos: 733
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 12:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
The exoplanets remain too far from the Earth, and there is no possibility of direct observation. So, Is there a possibility of identify the Exoplanet ? But, the exoplanet can be measured using 1. Starlight Distortion and 2. Subtle Gravitational Wobble.

Are these measurements reliable ?? Yes. But, ONLY when the planets HOST STAR emit light in Stable consistent pattern over time. So, the conclusion is ONLY few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals ( Consistent Detection).

The conclusion remains logical when we assume which of the following options :

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.

There is no where a comparison between direct observation and indirect detection. So this cannot be an assumption.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles.

If there are no alternative methods to detect reliable signal data from exoplanets except through the two methods mentioned. So, only through the signals which we detect via host stars in exoplanets. The conclusion logically flows, only if there are NO alternative methods to detect reliable signal, suppose if there are alternative ways to detect signals then the need for indirect dectection seems irrelevant to the question.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.

This is clearly mentioned in the question stem, which cannot be assumed. Hence, eliminating it.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.

If the exoplanet orbiting stars emitting consistent patterns are less compared to inconsistent emission patterns, this assumption cannot be used to arrive at the conclusion logically. Hence eliminating it.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.

If stable stars fail to emit detectable signals, then The conclusion doesn’t hold good. Hence wrong.


Option B
User avatar
chasing725
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2025
Last visit: 17 Aug 2025
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
81
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: United States (OR)
Schools: Stanford
Schools: Stanford
Posts: 85
Kudos: 81
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 13:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more

Conclusion: Few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.

This isn't a valid assumption. The author doesn't question anything about planetary atmospheres. The argument is about exoplanets. Eliminate A.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles

Alternate plans and the presence of absences is not a valid assumption. We can eliminate B

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.

No information as such is present. Eliminate C.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.

Correct. Hence, the author concludes few exoplanets can be detected.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.

Out of scope and can be eliminate.

Option D
User avatar
pappal
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 116
Own Kudos:
45
 [1]
Given Kudos: 52
Posts: 116
Kudos: 45
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 13:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
stem:
P1->>most EP--too far--so detected by indirect techniques
P2->>detection depends --special characteristic of the host star
C->>FEW EP detectable
choices:
1.C says nothing about the reliability of detection methods RED
2.C is not about the alternative methods RED
3.C doesn't mentions about the reliability of the data RED
4.the only choice that describes why the no of detectable EP is few GREEN
5.this choice just mentions exception that why some EP are non detectable though having reliable emission host star, out of scope RED
hence D
User avatar
Harika2024
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 80
Own Kudos:
65
Given Kudos: 31
Location: India
Posts: 80
Kudos: 65
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 15:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
leets check the options,

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
The argument is about finding the planets consistently, not studying their atmospheres. So, not the right assumption.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles.
The argument says "these methods" (starlight distortions/wobbles) need steady stars. If there were other "reliable methods" (not these two) that didn't need steady stars, then we could still find alien planets consistently, even if their stars were wobbly. But if this option is true (meaning there are NO other ways for reliable detection), then the need for steady stars applies to all reliable indirect detection, which supports the conclusion that "few" will be found if their stars aren't steady.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
The argument already says the star's steadiness is important. Saying it's "more important" than the planet isn't the missing link. We just need it to be necessary, not the most important factor.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
This would definitely support the conclusion ("few"). If steady stars are rare, then alien planets that can be found with these tricks would also be rare. However, the argument's flaw isn't just about the number of planets, but about why they can't be consistently detected. This option explains why the number might be small, but it's not the underlying assumption about how detection works. Even if steady stars were common, the argument's logic about how detection is done would still need B to be true.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
This would actually weaken the argument. The argument assumes that if a star is steady, we can get reliable signals. If some don't, then the whole idea breaks down.

the best answer is B
User avatar
MBAChaser123
User avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2024
Last visit: 14 Nov 2025
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
74
 [1]
Given Kudos: 7
Location: United States
Schools: Broad'26 (WL) Ross '26 (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V83 DI82
GPA: 3
Schools: Broad'26 (WL) Ross '26 (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V83 DI82
Posts: 86
Kudos: 74
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 15:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.

This is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is not about the reliability of the method or the planetary atmosphere.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles

This is correct information, but the conclusion is not based on this information. Mostly the first premis is based on this information.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.

This could be correct information, but the conclusion is not based on this information. This could be an inference from the premises in the argument.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.

This is the correct answer. The conclusion clearly states "few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals", and we know that a planet’s host star's stable light emission is the cause of the detectable signals.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.

This weakens the argument, so the conclusion is not based on this information.

The answer is D.
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
Shin0099
User avatar
Joined: 26 Aug 2024
Last visit: 25 Sep 2025
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 442
Posts: 59
Kudos: 35
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 16:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more

in this case, i just observed the conclusion as the relevant part and the rest as support.
That said, we are lookomg for something that relates to the conclusion.

1) Not Host-Related
2) Not Host-Related
3) Host related - Hold
4) Not Host-related
5) Not Host-related

therefore, i go with C)
User avatar
DylanD
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
20
 [1]
Given Kudos: 163
Location: United States
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 39
Kudos: 20
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 17:12
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Flow Diagram of Indirect Observation
(# of Known Exoplanets far away) - (# of exoplanets lacking a host star with stable & consistent emissions) = # of Exoplanets producing Detectable Signals
A - B = C

Claim: (A) - B = (few of A)
Assumption: A will not change, so B will need to account for the decrease

Notation: /' = Increase; \, = Decrease; -- = No Impact
Goal: Find answer that shows B \,
A) --
B) "such as" from the passage implies these are a subset of methods; "no" implies there are no other methods
C) --
D) If B = 0, A = C and the claim falls apart; For B > (1/2)*A, the claim is proven
E) --

Answer: D
User avatar
lvillalon
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2025
Last visit: 25 Aug 2025
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
73
 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Location: Chile
Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship
Schools: HEC Sept '26 INSEAD Aug '26 IMD'26 Rotterdam'26 Booth '26 Sloan '26 Kellogg '26 Anderson '26
GPA: 3,3
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Schools: HEC Sept '26 INSEAD Aug '26 IMD'26 Rotterdam'26 Booth '26 Sloan '26 Kellogg '26 Anderson '26
Posts: 88
Kudos: 73
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 19:20
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Nor is this reliability mentioned, nor is the influence of atmospheres.
B. Not related to the conclusion.
C. True but it does not influence the amount of exoplanets.
D. Else, there would be no foundation to say that few exoplanets produce detectable signals. CORRECT ANSWER
E. There still might be many exoplanets fitting the criteria, making this insignificant.
Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
DataGuyX
User avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2023
Last visit: 06 Nov 2025
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
77
Given Kudos: 161
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
Posts: 107
Kudos: 77
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 20:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(Sentence 1) Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles.
> Being too far from Earth, we need use indirect methods to identify most know exoplanets

(Sentence 2) However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time.
> If <reliable data> then <planet's host stat emits light in stable and consistente patterns>
Therefore
> If !(not)<planet's host stat emits light in stable and consistente patterns> then !(not)<reliable data>

We can not say, however:
> If <planet's host stat emits light in stable and consistente patterns> then <reliable data>

(Sentence 3) Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.
> if <Sentence 2> is True then <few exoplanets are likely to produce> EXCEPT <are close enough to be observed directly>


The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?


A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
 The statement says nothing about reliability, only shows a requirement. Wrong answer.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
This option seems a good answer choice. If there are alternative methods other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles we would not be able to say Sentence 3.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
The statement says nothing about this specifically, only shows a requirement related to the star. Wrong answer.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
This is not required as assumption. Could be less common, but would not be an assumption to get "few exoplanets are likely to produce signals". We could even have another kind of signals and detect via other alternative/indirect methods. Our observations that A requires B but B does not imply in A is also a point that weakens this option. Wrong answer.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
The text says nothing about this nor it is a assumption. Wrong answer.

Answer = B
User avatar
FrontlineCulture
User avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2025
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 46
Kudos: 19
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 20:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
this is essentially a strengthening question; that is, what assumption, if true, would make the conclusion within the argument more tightly knit:

I am conflicted between B and D:

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles --> the premise is that most known exoplanets are too far from earth to be observed directly, so indirect detection methods are used.
those methods however are only reliable if the host planet's star emits light in stable patterns over time. And the conclusion is essentially that, MOST exoplanet's distance from Earth, and presumably greater distance from the sun (host star), precludes data from said methods from being reliable.

however, if there are other methods that can be advanced and implemented, perhaps there will be greater opportunity for reliable signals in the future -- despite the exoplanets' distance.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.

answer choice D is also compelling because the argument stated that most KNOWN exoplanets are too far from Earth,
but perhaps there are unknown exoplanets, and these exist in large number once they are finally discovered which can lead to a lot a reliable signaling from exoplanets.


I think answer choice B is most compelling though and will settle with that.

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.[SCOPE]

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.[RESTATES THE ARGUMENT ESSENTIALLY]

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals. [weakens; out of scope]

Bunuel
Most known exoplanets lie too far from Earth to be observed directly and must instead be identified using indirect detection methods, such as measuring starlight distortions or subtle gravitational wobbles. However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time. Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
SaanjK26
User avatar
Joined: 08 Oct 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 77
Own Kudos:
63
Given Kudos: 69
Location: India
Posts: 77
Kudos: 63
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 10 Jul 2025, 20:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A) Incorrect. This compares indirect vs. direct methods in terms of atmospheric data, not signal detection.
The conclusion is about signal detectability, not atmosphere.

B) Correct: The conclusion says only nearby (directly observable) exoplanets can be detected reliably. That’s only true if indirect methods are the only options available — and those methods fail for distant planets if the host star is unstable.

So, B must be true to rule out any other method that could make distant exoplanet detection possible.

C) Incorrect:This explains why indirect detection depends on star stability.
But it doesn't justify why only nearby planets can be reliably detected.

D) Incorrect:This would strengthen the idea that indirect detection is often unreliable.
But the conclusion depends on distance, not frequency of star types.

E) This undermines the idea that star stability is enough for detection. It actually weakens the argument rather than supports it.

Answer: (B).
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts