Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 15:46 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 15:46
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
LastHero
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2024
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 134
Own Kudos:
147
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 134
Kudos: 147
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 06:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
The argument is about detecting exoplanets, not necessarily their atmospheres.

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 focuses on the methods that measure starlight distortions and subtle gravitational wobbles and their reliance on stable star emissions. The argument is not about other methods.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
This is more about what affects detection, not how many are detectable.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
If stable stars are rare, then the conditions for indirect detection are rare, so few exoplanets will have detectable signals unless they're close enough for direct observation. This fills the gap between premises and conclusion perfectly.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
The argument is that few exoplanets are detectable unless close, implying that with stable stars, they are detectable. This doesn't support the conclusion.

The right answer is D
User avatar
jkkamau
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 132
Own Kudos:
107
 [1]
Given Kudos: 122
Location: Kenya
Schools: Haas '25
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46
GPA: 3.5
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: Haas '25
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46
Posts: 132
Kudos: 107
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 06:28
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. Incorrect as it does not address the detection possibility which is the primary issue
lB. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles. Incorrect because we have already been told this
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself. Out of scope
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. Correct clearly fills the logic gap by eliminating other alternative methods of detection
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals. Incorrect as it has no effect on the flow of logic
ANS 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
Mardee
User avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2022
Last visit: 16 Oct 2025
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
110
 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 127
Kudos: 110
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 06:41
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
Irrelevant as it should be about whether planets can be detected at all not about comparing atmospheric data.

B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles
Irrelevant as it doesn’t connect to the likelihood of exoplanets producing detectable signals even though it strengthens the premise that indirect methods are the only way.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
Irrelevant as it doesn’t support why few exoplanets produce detectable signals even if it helps explain why the host star matters. Basically it doesn’t explain why only few exoplanets can be detected

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
Relevant since if most stars don’t have stable emissions, then indirect methods won’t reliably detect most exoplanets. Therefore, only close enough planets will be detectable.
If this is false, the conclusion collapses, hence this is the required assumption

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
Irrelevant as it weakens the conclusion by suggesting another failure possibility. Not an assumption that supports it.


D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
User avatar
twinkle2311
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
167
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
Schools: ISB '26 Wharton '26
GPA: 9.041
Schools: ISB '26 Wharton '26
Posts: 150
Kudos: 167
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 07:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

We need to assume that indirect detection is the only way to get reliable signal data, so if a planet isn’t close enough for direct viewing, we can’t pick it up any other way.

A is irrelevant because comparing indirect vs direct reliability doesn’t matter for detecting signals. eliminate
B sounds good imo. we need to assume that there’s no other way to get reliable data besides starlight shifts or wobbles. keep
C doesn't matter because whether data depends on star or planet doesn’t affect availability of other methods. eliminate
D is out of scope because how common certain star types are isn’t needed to reach the conclusion. eliminate
E is irrelevant because saying some stable stars still fail doesn’t explain why only close planets work . eliminate

Answer: B
User avatar
SaKVSF16
User avatar
Joined: 31 May 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
79
 [1]
Given Kudos: 41
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 86
Kudos: 79
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 07:07
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Breaking down argument:

Argument says there are essentially two methods of detecting exoplanets
1. If they are close enough - using direct methods
2. if they are far enough - using indirect methods which depend on the stability of the star's emissions
Conclusion is that there are few exoplanets that are far (few meaning not majority, <50%) that can produce detectable signals
So its saying - if the planet is close enough- great. But among those that are far away and cannot use direct (and must be using indirect), less than 50% can produce detectable signals - somewhat assuming that the stars of most of these far -living planets cannot produce reliable signals - hence the indirect method must not be working that great


First eliminated A , C , E:

A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres - comparing the 2 routed based on "gathering data about planetary atmospheres" is irrelevant - focus of argument is on their ability to send signals.


C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself- this is already mentioned in the Premise- the argument says the reliability depends on the star's ability to emit light in stable patterns.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals - this is only strengthening the argument that even those with stable emissions, some might produce unreliable emissions. But we need assumption not strengthener. Negating this does not break the conclusion- we need to find an assumption that focuses on the number of planets that produce these stable emissions in the first place.


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

This seemed like a strong contender. The argument focuses on 2 routes so maybe introducing a third route would weaken the conclusion, so the assumption may be required.
Negating this assumption means there ARE alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data.
The negation of this assumption could weaken the conclusion BUT a few more things would need to be assumed for this:

> there is no mention whether this alternate method is direct or indirect - if there is a direct alternate method - then no effect on conclusion

> if there is an alternative indirect method - does this method also rely on the stability of stars? we don't know? if it also relies on stability - then again no effect on the conclusion

> the argument says there are indirect methods "SUCH AS" starlight distortion or gravitational wobbles - " such as " MAY NOT imply ONLY these 2 methods exist under indirect methods. There could be other methods under the indirect umbrella - which also depend on stability of stars - negation of the assumption is just reiterating the premise in this case

There seems to be a lot of further assumptions to be made for this choice to be an assumption. Its not clear whether alternate methods could lead to more planets getting detected reliably, So I eliminated it.

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

Negation : Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are ATLEAST AS common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions

If those orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are JUST AS COMMON - these exoplanets must be sending reliable signals -> so there are not just "few exoplanets" which are far away, sending reliable signals. This breaks the conclusion

Essentially this choice attacks the "few exoplanets" part saying if there were 50 planets with reliable signals, and 50 planets with unreliable signals - then half of total are sending reliable signals, so you cannot say "few" - which implies less than half.
So assumption has to be that exoplanets with reliable signals are less common - less planets are sending reliable signals

Answer is D
User avatar
GarvitGoel
User avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 69
Own Kudos:
54
Posts: 69
Kudos: 54
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 07:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option B is the correct answer.

Lets understand the passage before diving into the options.

So the question starts by telling us that "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 ". And then the question asks us the passage depends upon which assumption.

Negation is the best way to answer assumption question which means when a option is negated it should destroy/weaken the passage.

Now lets check which of the option gives us the answer.

Option A: "Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres". We can directly rule out this option without negating it as this option talks about the difference between direct and indirect observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres for which we are not concern in the passage. Eliminated

Option B: "There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles". After negating this option we will get "There are alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles" which would weaken the passage as it tells us their are other methods by which we can detect exponents and for that we don't have to rely solely on 'distortions or gravitational wobbles' which will definitely weaken/destroy the passage. But lets check other options as well before marking this as our answer. Selected

Option C: "Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself". After negating this option we get "Reliable interpretation of signal-related data does not depend more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself". If we check this option with the passage then this option neither weaken nor strengthen the passage, it is neutral. As we are looking for the option which when negated weaken/destroy the passage that's why this option is not sufficient to answer. Eliminated

Option D: "Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions". This option is irrelevant in answering the question as it is comparing orbiting stars with consistent emission patter to less common one regarding which we are not concerned because in passage is for possible detection not regarding not regarding how commonly detected a star is. Eliminated

Option E: "Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals". If we read it properly we will notice that this option weakens the passage without even negating it. That's why it is not our answer. Eliminated


After checking all the option now we can conclude that Only Option B satisfies the negation condition that's why it is our answer.

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
eshika23
User avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2024
Last visit: 11 Oct 2025
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 65
Posts: 71
Kudos: 34
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 07:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Stimulus:
Since exoplanet lie too far, it is difficult to observe directly, hence indirect methods must be used.
These methods reliable when planet's host start emit light in stable and consistent pattern over time.
Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce detectable signals unless they are close enough to be observed directly.

Pre-thinking:
How each statement is linked?
common between first 2 statements is indirect method

Exoplanet lie too far so indirect method, but only if planet's host star emit light in stable and consistent patterns over time.

how 2 and 3rd statement fits together?
Only few exoplanets likely to produce detectable signal or they are close enough that we can directly observe.

final inference can be to observe exoplanets too far we can use indirect method only if their host start produce stable and consistent light patterns over time or they are close that we can directly observe them.

Answers:
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres. (the argument is about observation of planet we dont know it is specifically for atmosphere or what, this introduces a new idea so we can eliminate this)
B. There are no alternative methods of detecting reliable signal data from exoplanets other than through shifts in starlight distortions or gravitational wobbles (this seems extreme since we dont know about any other method. and they never said only these two are there)
C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself. (This can be reasonable since yes host start emitting light is major reliability on if method is correct or not so we can keep this)
D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions. (This says about orbiting all starts but the argument is concerned with just the host start and not any other so no)
E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals. (Out of scope)

Answer C
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
RedYellow
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2025
Last visit: 09 Nov 2025
Posts: 80
Own Kudos:
74
 [1]
Posts: 80
Kudos: 74
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 07:56
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 about atmospheric data, which is irrelevant.

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 beyond starlight distortions/gravitational wobbles (which require stable star emissions), then few exoplanets will produce detectable signals unless directly observable.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
It doesn't connect between "methods are limited" and the conclusion.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
The argument doesn't mention the relative frequency of star types, only that stable stars are required.

E. Some exoplanets orbit stars with stable emissions but still fail to produce reliably detectable signals.
This weakens the conclusion, it suggests that even ideal conditions may not lead to detection.

Correct answer is B
User avatar
Lemniscate
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2025
Last visit: 09 Nov 2025
Posts: 80
Own Kudos:
72
Posts: 80
Kudos: 72
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 07:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Indirect detection methods are less reliable than direct observation when gathering data about planetary atmospheres.
The argument is about detecting exoplanets, not studying their 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 alternative methods existed (radio emissions, thermal imaging), the conclusion wouldn't hold, because we might still detect exoplanets even with unstable stars.

C. Reliable interpretation of signal-related data depends more on the characteristics of the host star than on the exoplanet itself.
Even if planet properties mattered more, the argument's logic wouldn't change, because unstable stars still block detection.

D. Exoplanets orbiting stars with consistent emission patterns are less common than those orbiting stars with inconsistent emissions.
But the conclusion would still hold even if stable stars were common, just with fewer undetectable exoplanets.

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

Answer B
User avatar
eshika23
User avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2024
Last visit: 11 Oct 2025
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 65
Posts: 71
Kudos: 34
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 08:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For D to be true, they said orbiting stars in general but not specifically the host star, what if host star doesn't emit stable light and others do? stars make the argument broader but its not that broad in terms of what they are observing.
Is there anything wrong in my reasoning?
Bunuel
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.

­

GMAT Club Official Explanation:



Let’s break this argument down statistically for better clarity.

Quote:
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.

Let’s say out of 100 total exoplanets, 10 are close enough to Earth to be observed directly. The remaining 90 are too far and require indirect methods like those mentioned above.

Quote:
However, these methods can generate reliable signal data only if the planet’s host star emits light in stable and consistent patterns over time.

So now we know that even for indirect methods to work, the host star must have stable emissions.

Quote:
Therefore, few exoplanets are likely to produce communication signals that can be consistently detected unless they are close enough to Earth to be observed directly.

Whoa, that’s a leap! It’s saying unless an exoplanet is one of those 10 close ones, only a few of the remaining 90 will reliably produce communication signals.

Let’s say out of the 90 faraway exoplanets, only 20 orbit stars with stable emissions and therefore can be reliably detected. The remaining 70 orbit unstable stars, making detection inconsistent.

So to recap:

  • 10 exoplanets (near) -> observable directly
  • 90 exoplanets (far) -> need indirect methods - Out of these 90: 20 -> stable stars -> consistent signals & 70 -> unstable stars -> inconsistent signals

This whole conclusion only works if that distribution holds true and we’re supposed to find which assumption makes the argument logically follow.

Let's go through the options now -

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

– Do we know anything about a comparison between the results of direct and indirect methods? I don't think so. What we can reliably say is that for planets which are far away, we will need to use indirect methods. So this option is incorrect.

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

– Good trap. First trap is that it's talking about all exoplanets and not only the ones that are far away from Earth, whereas the near ones use direct methods for measurement.

Ideally you should have already eliminated this choice by now, if not,
Second, we definitely need to use indirect methods to detect exoplanets that are far from Earth, and a couple of techniques used are starlight distortions and gravitational wobbles.

But do we know there's no other indirect method apart from these two that can be used for this measurement?

The argument only discusses a few examples using the phrase "such as", so it would be a strong hypothesis to rule out any others as it's not explicitly stated in the argument and hence, this is not an implied assumption. And if there does exist other indirect methods to detect reliable signal data, does the conclusion break? Don't think so, as the conclusion was made for all indirect methods not the only ones mentioned in the argument.

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

– This might be true, but it’s not implied in any way by the given argument.

It could well be the case that the characteristics of the host star are one attribute required for communication, but other attributes of the exoplanet like its structure and atmosphere could be equally important for reliable communication.

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

– Right on point! As we noted from our earlier statistics, exoplanets with inconsistent emissions i.e., 70 out of 100 are far greater than the other ones. So this is clearly an assumption of the argument.

If we negate this, say the ones with consistent emissions are more common, then exoplanets with consistent host stars would likely be in the majority, and the conclusion that "few exoplanets are likely to produce communication signals that can be consistently detected" would completely fall apart.

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

– Sure, this might be true, but the argument doesn’t need it. Even if 5 out of the 20 stable ones failed to produce signals, there would still be few left, and the conclusion would still stand. This isn’t something the argument depends on but it’s just extra information.

Answer D
Show more
User avatar
bebu24
User avatar
Joined: 19 May 2025
Last visit: 21 Aug 2025
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 61
Kudos: 35
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): Most known exoplanets lie too far 11 Jul 2025, 08:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise: Indirect 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

Assumption: Fewer exoplanets have host stars that emit light in stable and consistent patterns over time.

Option D, clearly captures the underlying assumption.
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
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts