Last visit was: 09 May 2024, 09:43 It is currently 09 May 2024, 09:43

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Difficulty: 605-655 Levelx   Long Passagex   Sciencex                        
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2014
Status:I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Posts: 474
Own Kudos [?]: 38910 [136]
Given Kudos: 220
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 2.81
WE:Business Development (Real Estate)
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 984 [84]
Given Kudos: 1022
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 116 [61]
Given Kudos: 8
Send PM
General Discussion
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6922
Own Kudos [?]: 63825 [10]
Given Kudos: 1782
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
5
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Skywalker18 wrote:
(Book Question: 11)
The passage is primarily concerned with

A. explaining why one method of earthquake prediction has proven more practicable than an alternative method
B. suggesting that accurate earthquake forecasting must combine elements of long-term and short-term prediction
C. challenging the usefulness of dilatancy theory for explaining the occurrence of precursory phenomena
D. discussing the deficiency of two methods by which researchers have attempted to predict the occurrence of earthquakes
E. describing the development of methods for establishing patterns in the occurrence of past earthquakes

Skywalker18 wrote:
Nice passage . All correct , Took 11 mins 30 seconds, including 5 mins 30 seconds to read the passage .
AjiteshArun , mikemcgarry ,GMATNinja , ccooley , GMATNinjaTwo , egmat , other experts -- can you please help in Q11(First question)--

I quickly narrowed down to option D and E , but was not confident of the selected answer -- Is option D better because the main intent of researchers has been to predict the occurrence of earthquakes, not establishing patterns in the occurrence of past earthquakes?

D. discussing the deficiency of two methods by which researchers have attempted to predict the occurrence of earthquakes
E. describing the development of methods for establishing patterns in the occurrence of past earthquakes

Skywalker18, your reasoning looks good!

We are looking for the primary purpose of the passage, so we need to identify the main intent of the author, not of the researchers. The author describes two failed methods attempted by researchers: one tried in 1971 and the other tried in the 1980s.

As you noted, the goal of those methods (and of the researchers) was to predict earthquakes (the first was geared towards short-term prediction and the other was geared towards long-term prediction). The author explains how those methods failed. Thus, the author's intention was to discuss the deficiency of those two methods.

The second method did involve analyzing patterns in the occurrence of past earthquakes. But did the passage discuss the methods that were used to establish those patterns? No, and even if it did, those patterns do not represent the main purpose of the passage. Rather, the patterns are just background information that the author gives in order to show how that second method failed.

Choice (D) the best answer.

I hope that helps!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 984 [9]
Given Kudos: 1022
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
6
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
KS15 wrote:
GMATNinjaTwo,

How did you infer that those 2 precursors were 'time' and 'place' as mentioned in Option C? In my opinion, A looks to be the clear winner.

Thanks.

Quote:
(Book Question: 16)
The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.

The passage states that "these foreshocks [that precede most large earthquakes] indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes."

Thus, the researchers cannot use foreshocks (precursory phenomena) to predict earthquakes. A foreshock could be followed by a large earthquake, a small earthquake, or no earthquake at all. Thus, the foreshocks do not give us any information about the time or place that earthquakes are likely to occur.

In other words, if a phenomena gives you no information about whether an earthquake will occur, then obviously it does not give you any information about the time or place that an earthquake will occur. Although "time" and "place" are not specifically cited, we can infer this from the statements in the passage.

Refer to my earlier post for additional analysis of this question and an explanation of why choice (A) is wrong: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-1971-rese ... l#p1835521.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 984 [7]
Given Kudos: 1022
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
5
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
AR15J,

Quote:
Can you please explain why choice E is incorrect in question 14 (4)?
My reasoning:
Since paleoseismology provides evidence for regular earthquake cycles on which long term prediction is based. That means related theory written in line 45 are facts on which researchers' theory is based.


Referring to line 45, the paleoseismologists "have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, from 44 to 332 years." This evidence does not suggest that earthquakes occur at regular intervals because the intervals ranged greatly (from 44 to 332 years); in fact, this is evidence against the existence of regular earthquake cycles that could, if they existed, be used in long-term earthquake prediction. If the intervals did not vary greatly (ie if the standard deviation was lower and the interval between most of those earthquakes was very close to the average of 132 years, then this would suggest that earthquakes in that region occur at regular intervals).

Furthermore, the question is asking us to select a fact on which some researchers based their research. Choice E describes data collected by paleoseismologists while conducting their research; thus, choice E describes the research itself, not a fact on which the research was based. Choice C, on the other hand, describes a fact on which some researchers based their research (see line 29: "Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions."). In other words, Lindh and Baker noted the fact that "some regions tend to be the site of numerous earthquakes over the course of many years," so they began to study those regions to see if they could identify patterns of recurrence on which to base long-term earthquake prediction.
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1436
Own Kudos [?]: 4554 [6]
Given Kudos: 1228
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
alpham wrote:
Can someone explain why the primarily purpose is D and not E? I thought it was more about the development of methods rather than the shortcomings of methods.


The passage discusses two methods for predicting earthquakes and suggests that both the methods are not accurate - Answer has to be D.

Now lets look at why E is wrong:
E. describing the development of methods for establishing patterns in the occurrence of past earthquakes - Are the two methods limited to establishing patterns of past earthquakes? No. Moreover development of methods is a positive tone. But the passage is not too optimistic about the methods suggested. E cannot be the answer.
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Posts: 3600
Own Kudos [?]: 5432 [6]
Given Kudos: 346
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
arvind910619 wrote:
Hi Experts
Please explain the answer of the last question ?


Hi arvind910619 ,

Let me help you. :)

Last question is talking about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18.

To answer this question, you must understand the following lines:

"Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes."

These lines say they tried recording the Seismic waves of certain regions with the hope that they will determine the place and the time of earthquake occurrence but later they found that we have some places where we can see similar kind of seismic waves but no earth quake is present.

This means what they were thinking is the right approach came out to be irrelevant for them.

Thus, option C is correct. "They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur."

Let me talk about other options now:

A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be. --> No where we are given this. As per the meaning, their method was wrong. Hence, they were not able to identify the places or time.

B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur. --> Same as above. They cannot identify the regions.

C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.


D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction. --> This is not given for these researchers.

E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future. --> Again, this is not given

Does that make sense?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1266
Own Kudos [?]: 5654 [5]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
3
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
P1 - for anticipating earthquake, a theory is given. what it is based on is given.
P2 - above theory is not that effective. reasons are given.
P3 - new theory is given with new aims. this one is also flop.

(Book Question: 11)
The passage is primarily concerned with

A. explaining why one method of earthquake prediction has proven more practicable than an alternative method - no
B. suggesting that accurate earthquake forecasting must combine elements of long-term and short-term prediction - p3 only
C. challenging the usefulness of dilatancy theory for explaining the occurrence of precursory phenomena - p1 + p2
D. discussing the deficiency of two methods by which researchers have attempted to predict the occurrence of earthquakes - best of the lot.
E. describing the development of methods for establishing patterns in the occurrence of past earthquakes - no

----------------------------------------------
(Book Question: 12)
According to the passage, laboratory evidence concerning the effects of stress on rocks might help account for

According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in (15) the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

B. certain phenomena that occur prior to earthquakes -

----------------------------------------------
(Book Question: 13)
It can be inferred from the passage that one problem with using precursory phenomena to predict earthquakes is that minor tremors
P2 - these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are (25) indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

E. are not always followed by large earthquakes -
----------------------------------------------
(Book Question: 14)
According to the passage, some researchers based their research about long-term earthquake prediction on which of the following facts?
P3 - Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions.

C. Some regions tend to be the site of numerous earthquakes over the course of many years. -

----------------------------------------------

(Book Question: 15)
The passage suggests which of the following about the paleoseismologists’ findings described in lines 42–50?

40) earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by (45) earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, (50) from 44 to 332 years.
PT - that long term prediction is not useful.

D. They suggest that the recurrence of earthquakes in earthquake-prone sites is too irregular to serve as a basis for earthquake prediction. -
----------------------------------------------

(Book Question: 16)
The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur. - yes
----------------------------------------------
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6922
Own Kudos [?]: 63825 [4]
Given Kudos: 1782
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
anuj11 wrote:
Can some one explain question 13 ? I cant distinguish between C and E !! Ended up picking C

Quote:
(Book Question: 13)
It can be inferred from the passage that one problem with using precursory phenomena to predict earthquakes is that minor tremors

A. typically occur some distance from the sites of the large earthquakes that follow them
B. are directly linked to the mechanisms that cause earthquakes
C. are difficult to distinguish from major tremors
D. have proven difficult to measure accurately
E. are not always followed by large earthquakes

The key lies in this portion of the passage:

Quote:
while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about
the magnitude of an impending quake and are
(25)
indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur
without large earthquakes.

Most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors. Does that mean whenever we observe a minor tremor, we can predict that a large earthquake will occur? .... unfortunately not, because those minor tremors are indistinguishable from minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes. In other words, we have no idea whether a minor tremor will be followed by a large earthquake.

As for choice (C), the passage does not say that minor tremors are difficult to distinguish from major tremors. Regardless, unlike choice (E), this does not describe the problem with using precursory phenomena to predict earthquakes.

I hope that helps!
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1436
Own Kudos [?]: 4554 [3]
Given Kudos: 1228
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
3
Kudos
smartyman wrote:
Please provide OE for Q16. Thanks.


Line 18: Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening.

The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be. - Incorrect.
B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur. - Incorrect.
C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur. - Correct
D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction. -Incorrect
E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future. - Incorrect

Answer: C
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65202 [3]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
saby1410 wrote:
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
can u explain last question and also this line(earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors,) why 2 contradictory words are used together.
In 5 question if option d wasn't mentioned can we say E option be correct though it isn't mentioned whether they looked or not looked on causes of earthquake ,but paleoseismologists looked at the causes.



Yes, question no 6 is certainly a bit tricky and it took me a couple of reads before I settled on (C).

Lines of interest:
In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in
the short term by identifying precursory phenomena
(those that occur a few days before large quakes
but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes
(5)
in seismic waves...

...

Researchers initially reported success in identifying
these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses
of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves
(20)
with unusual velocities were recorded before some
earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about
the magnitude of an impending quake and are
(25)
indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur
without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their
efforts from short-term to long-term prediction.



So in 1971, researchers thought of predicting earthquakes in short term by identifying precursory phenomena (such as, rain before a rainbow).
They observed some changes in seismic waves before large earthquakes. Initially, they reported success (say, they observed that before every large earthquake, these seismic waves changed) but later were disappointed. They observed these changes in seismic waves before small earthquakes as well as without any earthquakes. So now can they predict when an earthquake will happen based on changes in seismic waves? No. Some times these changes lead to large earthquakes, sometimes to small earthquakes and sometimes to no earthquake. So if we see these changes, can we say whether an earthquake will happen? No.
In 1980s, some researchers turned away from predicting short term and tried to predict long term earthquakes. After this we have the discussion on places that are earthquake prone etc.

6. The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.

Changes in seismic waves can take place even without earthquakes. Apparently they are frequent enough to make researchers consider it a failure and turn away. Hence, they cannot identify when an earthquake is likely to occur.

C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.

Correct. The researchers mentioned in line 18 give no lead on predicting earthquakes in any way.

Answer (C)
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65202 [3]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
ag153 wrote:
KarishmaB why not choice B in question 6?

Also later in the passage when it talks about 'some researchers' are the researchers being referred to the same as earlier or these are different? And how do you identify that



6. The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

This is all that is given to us about "researchers" mentioned in line 18. What can we say about these researchers? That their methods failed to tell us anything about precursors to earthquakes. The passage doesn't tell us that they could tell the regions where earthquakes would occur. Their methods had failed to give any reliable insight.

Next passage starts with "In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term..." This is a good 10-15 years after 1971 and we are talking about "some researchers". It is not implied that they are the same researchers (using 'those researchers' etc). Also, it starts from a new paragraph so it's the next thought. Hence, we should ignore anything and everything given in the next paragraph.

So option (C) is correct.
Director
Director
Joined: 21 May 2013
Posts: 540
Own Kudos [?]: 228 [2]
Given Kudos: 608
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
GMATNinjaTwo,

How did you infer that those 2 precursors were 'time' and 'place' as mentioned in Option C? In my opinion, A looks to be the clear winner.

Thanks.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2015
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 60 [2]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: Canada
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE:Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Hi everyone! At this point, I think maybe it would be wise for me to change my user name to "NotAnExpert" because I always start off my posts with a disclaimer that I am indeed 'not an expert'. However, for the purposes of full disclosure, I always just want to make clear I'm a just a person studying for the GMAT and looking to use this forum as a place of learning and nothing else. I encourage everyone to contribute because without contributors, you would have nothing to read! =)

It seems like the final question of this passage is giving everyone the most trouble; a rather 'controversial question'. Lol. I'll give my take on it and hopefully if you are/were still struggling on having the 'ahh' moment, this may help you out. Although I may not be smiling any new tea, I often find that when I am having difficulty learning any concept, I just need to hear it explained multiple ways before I click with one.

Quote:
The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

(A) They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
(B) They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
(C) They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
(D) They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
(E) They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.

Step 1. I always, always, always rephrase the passage as I read. Make sure that this is an instinctive reaction as you read the passage. You should be continuously reading and rephrasing -i.e. comprehending - as you go. By the end of the passage, you should always be aiming to understand "what is the point of this passage?" which is the exact same question as "what is the passage primarily concerned with?"

Step 2. For every question, always go back to the passage. The question we're looking at is an inference question and so I immediately direct my eyes to the relevant portion of the passage and scan at the specific content +/- one sentence. For this, the work is already done for you as the question states to look at line 18, so just read the sentence before and after.

Step 3. Always find 4 wrong answers!
    (A) They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be. - Oh wow, already I am so very tempted. I am going to focus on explaining this answer choice because (1) I actually got this question wrong and fell into this trap, and (2) it seems to be the choice most people are grappling with.

    What made me fall for this was that it was half right and I really hung on to the fact - yes, it is true that 'researchers cannot predict how large it will be'. In addition, I think my mind mashed together the two parts of this “dilatancy theory,” regarding how stress fractures in rocks could lead to "such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena".

    I missed the causation and hence I was not able to distinguish between cause and effect; the cause (cracks in rocks) would tell you where the earthquakes are going to occur and the tremors that the are caused by said cracks (i.e. pressure) were 'supposed' to tell you how strong the quake would be. But none of that theory worked out: "Line 18: Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening".

    So while the passage may very explicitly say "these foreshocks [that precede most large earthquakes] indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.", it looks to me that I just misunderstood/misread the earlier part discrediting the other part of answer choice (A).

    (B) They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur. Ironically, I was able to knock this guy out right away. Line 18 +/-1 state that the researcher's cannot identify neither when nor where where earthquakes are likely to occur.

    (C) They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur. Bingo

    (D) They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.There is mention of the words "short-term" in the next few lines; however, you can quickly see that it is not in the context of the researchers targeted in our question stem.

    (E) They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future. Careful not to try and bring outside information into this. While it seems redundant to say researchers can find something that has already occurred, but not see what is going to happen in the future, this is not what is stated in the line 18. I think it's fairly straight forward that the passage does not state this so I'll leave this one without lengthy explanation.
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6878 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Hello, SkR1. I enjoyed reading your thorough analysis. I feel honored to have been mentioned alongside the others you named. I typically add my two cents when I feel a more thorough treatment of a question may be warranted, or if a user brings up a specific point that has not been addressed. I do this out of respect for my fellow GMAT Clubbers, Experts and students alike. In this case, I see that the top two posts in the thread address this very question. If you have read through the analyses by GMATNinjaTwo, neetis5, smartyman, Kurtosis, abhimahna, sahilbhatia21 at the top of page 2, and Chelsea212 and the question still does not make sense, then feel free to ask again for help. I guess I am having trouble understanding any lingering doubts you may have. (And, to be honest, I feel I have little to add in the way of insight that the posts above by the aforementioned members have not already touched on.)

Thank you for tagging me. I hope you find the answer you are looking for.

- Andrew
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65202 [2]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
saby1410 wrote:
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
can u explain last question and also this line(earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors,) why 2 contradictory words are used together.
In 5 question if option d wasn't mentioned can we say E option be correct though it isn't mentioned whether they looked or not looked on causes of earthquake ,but paleoseismologists looked at the causes.


As for question 5, option (E) is not correct and will not be. The passage doesn't suggest it. No one suggests anything about 'causes of earthquakes'.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6922
Own Kudos [?]: 63825 [2]
Given Kudos: 1782
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply

Question 5


Adambhau wrote:
Hi experts GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

Can someone explain, why D is correct in question 5?

Thanks!

Question 5 asks about some findings described in lines 42-50. Before diving into those exact lines, however, it's important to understand the broader context of that piece of the passage. Why is the author talking about the findings in the first place?

In the third paragraph, the author introduces the idea of "earthquake cycles." If earthquakes happened at regular intervals, that would be incredibly helpful in predicting when the next earthquake would occur.

But then, in the fourth paragraph, the author introduces evidence against the existence of regular earthquake cycles. This evidence comes from paleoseismologists, and their findings are described in lines 42-50:

    "Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, from 44 to 332 years.

Overall, this evidence shows that earthquake cycles aren't particularly useful in predicting exactly when the next earthquake will come around -- if someone told you that an earthquake will strike sometime within the next 44 to 332 years, you probably wouldn't find that to be a super helpful prediction.

This is captured perfectly in (D): the paleoseismologists' work suggests that "the recurrence of earthquakes in earthquake-prone sites is too irregular to serve as a basis for earthquake prediction."

(D) is the correct answer to question 5.

I hope that helps!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6922
Own Kudos [?]: 63825 [2]
Given Kudos: 1782
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply

Question 6


TSBK wrote:
@GMATNinjaTwo...can you help me by explaining why option E is wrong in Q6. I think the scientists are able to determine where the earth quakes have occurred in the past?

Question 6 asks us to choose the answer choice that is implied by the author of the passage. So, does the author imply that the researchers in line 18 can tell where earthquakes occurred in the past?

To answer detailed questions like this, go back to that specific portion of the passage to see what the author has said:
Quote:
Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

Here, there's no discussion about what these researchers knew concerning past earthquakes. The researchers tried to identify precursors to future earthquakes, and the author focuses on how analysis of the researchers' data is "disheartening." He/she then goes on to describe why the data isn't that helpful in predicting earthquakes.

The passage really doesn't discuss at all what these particular researchers knew about the regions where earthquakes happened in the past. Later in the passage, the author implies that some other researchers knew this information, but those are not the researchers that question 6 asks about.

It may seem like a reasonable assumption to say that the researchers knew something about past earthquakes, but that is simply never implied by the author of the passage. So you can eliminate (E) for question 6.

I hope that helps!
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos [?]: 507 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
woohoo921 wrote:
Choice D is incorrect because although I believe that this is referring to Lindh and Baker's method... Lindh and Baker's method only even looked at the San Andreas Fault?


That's not the problem. At the start of the discussion of Baker and Lindh, the passage notes that they were aware of repeated earthquakes in "certain regions" (plural)—which accords with "various areas".
(The passage describes a study on just the San Andreas, but, that's expected—the researchers and their equipment can only be in one place at a time. Studying one instance of something in order to figure out things that can be generalized to LOTS of instances is exactly how scientific research works—across basically all fields of science. As an analogy, an oncologist studying the development of cancer can only study it in one patient at a time, but observations on one patient with a certain kind of cancer are clearly relevant to the thousands of other patients who have the same kind of cancer.)

In any case, you're overthinking this. Stress patterns in rocks are only mentioned in the first paragraph, so, they are only relevant to the stuff in that paragraph. Baker and Lindh are not mentioned until the third paragraph, so they have nothing at all to do with stress patterns in rocks.
Therefore, D is just irrelevant. If you find yourself stuck doing process-of-elimination, you should at least be able to eliminate D quickly.


Quote:
Choice E is incorrect because it is only LATER (the next paragraph) that the laboratory evidence is discovered as being unreliable, correct?


Evidence can't be "unreliable". That doesn't make sense—"Evidence" is FACTUAL data. Data are data are data. Facts are facts. Once something has been established as a fact, it can't be "unreliable".

If you formulate a THEORY that you think will allow you to DO something with that factual evidence—such as to predict earthquakes, here—then that methodology might turn out to be "unreliable" if it doesn't let you do what you're trying to do with it.



In this instance, there are two steps to the prediction process: /1/ Rock stress patterns are used to predict "precursory phenomena", and then /2/ "precursory phenomena" are used to predict earthquakes.

As described in the second paragraph, the problem was step 2. The rock stress data is only related to step 1, so, no, it doesn't help explain the problem.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by [#permalink]
 1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6922 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14006 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne