Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
May 1806:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join Piyush Beriwala in this webinar as he guides you through a smart study plan to achieve the 99th %ile on the GMAT Focus. Learn the best strategies and tips to master the test and boost your score.
May 1610:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Save BIG with Magoosh! 50% off all study plans with code PREVAIL50 - Expires Monday 5/19
May 2411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn –1. Learn effective reading strategies 2.Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence 3.Excel in timed test environment
May 2408:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-05:30 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight fair, the biggest MBA fair of the year. You will have a chance to hear Admissions directors from almost every Top 20 program speak, network with peers, and conveniently attend morning or afternoon sessions.
20 Apr 2025, 04:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
I agree with your explanation for selecting option E. But the only question that I cant get rid of - What if there is a 3rd type of telescope, which meets the "light-gathering capacity" feature? Logically, there cant be a 3rd category as we have covered space (i.e. outside Earth) and ground (i.e. Earth). How to avoid such questions during the exam?
I think we still need to do justice to this well-crafted question. Here's my attempt:
I'll just focus on options B, D, and E. However, before I get to the options, let me create a parallel argument.
Students of Class 9A are invariably ill-dressed. Students of Class 9B, however, are well-dressed. Therefore, students of Class 9A will never represent the school in inter-school competitions.
While this argument is not parallel to the original argument in every nuance, I believe it captures the essence of the original argument. If you do not agree, feel free to let me know.
Now, let me create parallel options for this argument:
Option B: Students of Class 9A mentored by their class-teacher do not have the kinds of dressing problems that make students look like beggars.
Does this option weaken the above argument?
The answer is NO. The reason is that this option says that some students of Class 9A (i.e. students mentored by the class-teacher) do not have some kinds of dressing problems. Okay. So, these students are probably better than other students of Class 9A in this respect. However, vis-a-vis students of Class 9B, are these students comparable? There is no indication of this comparison. The reasoning of the argument still holds as is. Even though these students do not have certain kinds of dressing problems, they still are ill-dressed, as originally stated in the argument. Thus, it still doesn't make any sense to ask these students to represent the school. Think about it. The reasoning in the argument was that students of Class 9A are shabby and students of Class 9B are not and that thus students of Class 9A will not represent the school. Even if some students of Class 9A are less shabby than some other students of Class 9A, all the students of Class 9A are still shabby, and thus the reasoning of the argument is still intact.
Similarly, the given option B just says that certain ground-based telescopes (i.e. located on mountain summits) do not have 'certain' kinds of distortions. However, they still have distortions as should every ground-based telescope have (given the facts in the passage). Thus, the reasoning of the argument still holds as is.
Option D (The Parallel form): When students of Class 9A are mentored by their class teacher, they become the best-dressed of the students of Class 9A.
Again, in this option too, just as in option B, we are comparing shabbiness or the sense of dressing among the students of Class 9A. We still are not presenting any advantage students of Class 9A have over students of Class 9B. Of course, if we rank some students of Class 9A in terms of their dressing sense, some students are going to come at the top. However, this doesn't have any effect on the given fact that all students of Class 9A are ill-dressed. Thus, the reasoning of the argument still stands as is.
Similarly, the given option D says that the telescopes located at high altitudes near the equator provide the best 'Earth-based' observations (not the best 'overall' - in which case this option will present an advantage of ground-based telescopes over space telescopes and thus will weaken the argument). Comparing different ground-based telescopes will not help; of course, some of them will be better than the others. However, they all are invariably inferior to the orbiting space telescopes, as stated in the passage. Thus, the reasoning of the passage holds as is.
Option E: This option presents a shortcoming of the orbiting space telescopes. Let me also state that this shortcoming is with respect to ground-based telescopes, not a shortcoming in general. Why do I say that this shortcoming is w.r.t ground-based telescopes?
Because of what the non-essential modifier(within double commas) means. The modifier means that the astronomers rely upon detailed spectral analyses for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars. If they rely on this capability for determining X (chemical composition etc), they must already be having this capability because, from the context, it seems that they are already determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars. Now, if they have this capability and the orbiting space telescopes cannot provide this capability, it's likely that ground-based telescopes currently provide this capability. Thus, this option presents an advantage ground-based telescopes have over orbiting space telescopes and thus gives us a reason to doubt that ground-based telescopes will become obsolete.
I hope it helps!
- CJ
ChiranjeevSingh
kahipz
Images from ground-based telescopes are invariably distorted by the Earth's atmosphere. Orbiting space telescopes, however, operating above Earth's atmosphere, should provide superbly detailed images. Therefore, ground-based telescopes will soon become obsolete for advanced astronomical research purposes.
Which of the following statements, if true, would cast the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?
(A) An orbiting space telescope due to be launched this year is far behind schedule and over budget, whereas the largest ground-based telescope was both within budget and on schedule.
(B) Ground-based telescopes located on mountain summits are not subject to the kinds of atmospheric distortion which, at low altitudes, make stars appear to twinkle.
(C) By careful choice of observatory location, it is possible for large-aperture telescopes to avoid most of the kind of wind turbulence that can distort image quality.
(D) When large-aperture telescopes are located at high altitudes near the equator, they permit the best Earth-based observations of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, a prime target of astronomical research.
(E) Detailed spectral analyses, upon which astronomers rely for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars, require telescopes with more light-gathering capacity than space telescopes can provide.
Which of the following statements, if true, would cast the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?
(A) An orbiting space telescope due to be launched this year is far behind schedule and over budget, whereas the largest ground-based telescope was both within budget and on schedule.
(B) Ground-based telescopes located on mountain summits are not subject to the kinds of atmospheric distortion which, at low altitudes, make stars appear to twinkle.
(C) By careful choice of observatory location, it is possible for large-aperture telescopes to avoid most of the kind of wind turbulence that can distort image quality.
(D) When large-aperture telescopes are located at high altitudes near the equator, they permit the best Earth-based observations of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, a prime target of astronomical research.
(E) Detailed spectral analyses, upon which astronomers rely for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars, require telescopes with more light-gathering capacity than space telescopes can provide.
I think we still need to do justice to this well-crafted question. Here's my attempt:
I'll just focus on options B, D, and E. However, before I get to the options, let me create a parallel argument.
Students of Class 9A are invariably ill-dressed. Students of Class 9B, however, are well-dressed. Therefore, students of Class 9A will never represent the school in inter-school competitions.
While this argument is not parallel to the original argument in every nuance, I believe it captures the essence of the original argument. If you do not agree, feel free to let me know.
Now, let me create parallel options for this argument:
Option B: Students of Class 9A mentored by their class-teacher do not have the kinds of dressing problems that make students look like beggars.
Does this option weaken the above argument?
The answer is NO. The reason is that this option says that some students of Class 9A (i.e. students mentored by the class-teacher) do not have some kinds of dressing problems. Okay. So, these students are probably better than other students of Class 9A in this respect. However, vis-a-vis students of Class 9B, are these students comparable? There is no indication of this comparison. The reasoning of the argument still holds as is. Even though these students do not have certain kinds of dressing problems, they still are ill-dressed, as originally stated in the argument. Thus, it still doesn't make any sense to ask these students to represent the school. Think about it. The reasoning in the argument was that students of Class 9A are shabby and students of Class 9B are not and that thus students of Class 9A will not represent the school. Even if some students of Class 9A are less shabby than some other students of Class 9A, all the students of Class 9A are still shabby, and thus the reasoning of the argument is still intact.
Similarly, the given option B just says that certain ground-based telescopes (i.e. located on mountain summits) do not have 'certain' kinds of distortions. However, they still have distortions as should every ground-based telescope have (given the facts in the passage). Thus, the reasoning of the argument still holds as is.
Option D (The Parallel form): When students of Class 9A are mentored by their class teacher, they become the best-dressed of the students of Class 9A.
Again, in this option too, just as in option B, we are comparing shabbiness or the sense of dressing among the students of Class 9A. We still are not presenting any advantage students of Class 9A have over students of Class 9B. Of course, if we rank some students of Class 9A in terms of their dressing sense, some students are going to come at the top. However, this doesn't have any effect on the given fact that all students of Class 9A are ill-dressed. Thus, the reasoning of the argument still stands as is.
Similarly, the given option D says that the telescopes located at high altitudes near the equator provide the best 'Earth-based' observations (not the best 'overall' - in which case this option will present an advantage of ground-based telescopes over space telescopes and thus will weaken the argument). Comparing different ground-based telescopes will not help; of course, some of them will be better than the others. However, they all are invariably inferior to the orbiting space telescopes, as stated in the passage. Thus, the reasoning of the passage holds as is.
Option E: This option presents a shortcoming of the orbiting space telescopes. Let me also state that this shortcoming is with respect to ground-based telescopes, not a shortcoming in general. Why do I say that this shortcoming is w.r.t ground-based telescopes?
Because of what the non-essential modifier(within double commas) means. The modifier means that the astronomers rely upon detailed spectral analyses for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars. If they rely on this capability for determining X (chemical composition etc), they must already be having this capability because, from the context, it seems that they are already determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars. Now, if they have this capability and the orbiting space telescopes cannot provide this capability, it's likely that ground-based telescopes currently provide this capability. Thus, this option presents an advantage ground-based telescopes have over orbiting space telescopes and thus gives us a reason to doubt that ground-based telescopes will become obsolete.
I hope it helps!
- CJ
22 Apr 2025, 01:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Aditi_03
We don't have to worry about a third type of telescope, because we are not trying to prove that ground-based are necessary. We just need to show that space telescopes will not make ground telescopes obsolete. When we use E to defend the ground ones against the space ones, then the argument is effectively broken until we have some new reason to say that ground scopes will become obsolete. Sure, perhaps some other type of telescope will be better than both and will make them both obsolete. But we don't have that information. Based on what we have, the threat from space-based is eliminated, and we don't have reason to say that ground-based are out.
We don't have to worry about a third type of telescope, because we are not trying to prove that ground-based are necessary. We just need to show that space telescopes will not make ground telescopes obsolete. When we use E to defend the ground ones against the space ones, then the argument is effectively broken until we have some new reason to say that ground scopes will become obsolete. Sure, perhaps some other type of telescope will be better than both and will make them both obsolete. But we don't have that information. Based on what we have, the threat from space-based is eliminated, and we don't have reason to say that ground-based are out.
30 Apr 2025, 02:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
(E) Detailed spectral analyses, upon which astronomers rely for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars, require telescopes with more light-gathering capacity than space telescopes can provide.
-- Can someone please explain how do we relate "telescopes with more light-gathering capacity" with Ground based telescopes ?
Had the option mentioned Detailed spectral analyses, upon which astronomers rely for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars, require Ground based telescopes with more light-gathering capacity than space telescopes can provide. --> This would have been correct.
-- Can someone please explain how do we relate "telescopes with more light-gathering capacity" with Ground based telescopes ?
Had the option mentioned Detailed spectral analyses, upon which astronomers rely for determining the chemical composition and evolutionary history of stars, require Ground based telescopes with more light-gathering capacity than space telescopes can provide. --> This would have been correct.
