|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
10 Jul 2025, 21:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
QUESTION:
The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?
Break it down. What is the conclusion and what does it follow logically?
Most exoplanets are found using indirect detection methods (starlight distortion, gravitational wobble).
These methods only generate reliable signals if the host star’s emissions are stable and consistent over time.
Solve:
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
Not asking about atmospheres -No
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
somewhat strengthens. not an assumption that helps though - NO
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
No- not enough explanation
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
A key assumption - YES
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
Weakens - No
ANSWER D
The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?
Break it down. What is the conclusion and what does it follow logically?
Most exoplanets are found using indirect detection methods (starlight distortion, gravitational wobble).
These methods only generate reliable signals if the host star’s emissions are stable and consistent over time.
Solve:
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
Not asking about atmospheres -No
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
somewhat strengthens. not an assumption that helps though - NO
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
No- not enough explanation
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
A key assumption - YES
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
Weakens - No
ANSWER D
10 Jul 2025, 22:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
E would be the appropriate choice because exoplanets must produce detectable signals, now it can do so when the signal is stable and consistent patterns.
But in other options such as A, it says opposite that indirect method is not reliable but we are detecting using that method only.
B says there are no alternative methods but in passage it is mentioned that these are some methods and not only ones.
C says that interpretation depends on the characteristics but nothing is mentioend about that in passage.
D says that such planets are not common. But the main reason is the distance and not patterns.
But in other options such as A, it says opposite that indirect method is not reliable but we are detecting using that method only.
B says there are no alternative methods but in passage it is mentioned that these are some methods and not only ones.
C says that interpretation depends on the characteristics but nothing is mentioend about that in passage.
D says that such planets are not common. But the main reason is the distance and not patterns.
Bunuel
10 Jul 2025, 22:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
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?
=> In this we have
Premise : Given 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.
So anything which bridges or adderessed gap between premise and conclusion it will be our ans. so lets see options now
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. => this option is stating comparison between direct and indirect method but this don't need to be true to say that only few exoplanets are detectable. we are not concerned about reliability of method so this is not the ans
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles => if we negate this and say there are alternative method for detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets then conclusion falls apart so author will have to assume this so that conclusion stays intact. hence lets keep this
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself. => The argument already states that "host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time" that means we don't need to assume this we already have this info so not the ans
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. => How common are exo planets are not relevant to
this argument and we don't need to assume this as conclusion is talking about the method which detects the exoplanets and why detection of very few. it is not concerned about how many exo planets are orbiting stars. so not the ans
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.=> this sayseven when star with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliable detectable signals which some what opposite of conclusion we have in argument so this can't be used as assumption for our conclusion. hence not the ans
Hence Ans B
The conclusion above follows logically if which of the following is assumed?
=> In this we have
Premise : Given 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.
So anything which bridges or adderessed gap between premise and conclusion it will be our ans. so lets see options now
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. => this option is stating comparison between direct and indirect method but this don't need to be true to say that only few exoplanets are detectable. we are not concerned about reliability of method so this is not the ans
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles => if we negate this and say there are alternative method for detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets then conclusion falls apart so author will have to assume this so that conclusion stays intact. hence lets keep this
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself. => The argument already states that "host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time" that means we don't need to assume this we already have this info so not the ans
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. => How common are exo planets are not relevant to
this argument and we don't need to assume this as conclusion is talking about the method which detects the exoplanets and why detection of very few. it is not concerned about how many exo planets are orbiting stars. so not the ans
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.=> this sayseven when star with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliable detectable signals which some what opposite of conclusion we have in argument so this can't be used as assumption for our conclusion. hence not the ans
Hence Ans B
