In an intergalactic study, researchers from the Andromeda Research Ins

Question

In an intergalactic study, researchers from the Andromeda Research Institute found that planets with high concentrations of the rare element Xentronium exhibit significantly higher levels of advanced technological development than those without it. The researchers concluded that Xentronium itself must be responsible for the emergence of advanced civilizations, as planets rich in Xentronium consistently show rapid scientific progress.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers’ conclusion?

(A) Planets with large deposits of Xentronium also tend to be located in regions of space with higher-than-average radiation levels, which are known to accelerate certain types of evolutionary and technological advancements.

(B) Some highly advanced civilizations have been discovered on planets completely devoid of Xentronium.

(C) The extraction and use of Xentronium require already advanced technology, suggesting that civilizations must first develop sophisticated mining techniques before benefiting from the element.

(D) Xentronium deposits are often found on planets that also contain high concentrations of another rare mineral, Novarite, which has been linked to rapid scientific advancements.

(E) The study was based only on planets within a single galaxy, and data from other galaxies suggest no strong correlation between Xentronium and technological development.

sayantan151996 · Answer

Is the OA correct? I chose C. In option D isn't Xentronium a subset of Novarite? If Novarite is the main substance that determines the scientific progress, then there might be other planets also where only Novarite but no Xentronium is present but the scientific progress there is not noteworthy. Only the planets where both Xentronium and Novarite are present scientific progress took place. which strengthens the researchers’ conclusion. What am I missing?

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

Hi  napolean92728

could you confirm if the answer to this question would be (C)

and not (D)

Thanks

Prak0709 · Answer

Can anybody send the solution to this question ?

Bunuel · Answer

GMATharvard  please provide the source of the question and the OE. Thank you!

napolean92728 · Answer

See, first of all, you must understand the technique to solve such type of questions, i.e. weaken causality in conclusion. So here are all the techniques which you can use to do so.

The general argument being weakened assumes that  X causes Y . The techniques to challenge this assumption are:
 
  Alternative Cause (Z → Y) 
 
 Suggest that some other factor (Z) is actually responsible for Y. 
 Example: If a study claims that drinking coffee (X) causes productivity (Y), one could argue that high energy levels (Z) lead to both drinking coffee and being productive.  
 
  Common Cause (Z → X and Y) 
 
 Propose that both X and Y are effects of a common cause (Z), rather than X causing Y. 
 Example: The correlation between ice cream sales (X) and drowning incidents (Y) in summer can be explained by the heat (Z), which increases both ice cream consumption and swimming activity.  
 
  Reverse Causation (Y → X) 
 
 Argue that the causality is flipped—Y actually causes X, rather than X causing Y. 
 Example: Instead of "watching violent TV (X) causes aggression (Y)," one could argue that aggressive individuals (Y) are more likely to watch violent TV (X).  
 
  Correlation vs. Causation 
 
 Show that X and Y occur together but that does not necessarily mean X causes Y. 
 Example: If people who exercise regularly (X) tend to eat healthy (Y), it doesn’t mean exercise causes healthy eating—both could be due to personal discipline.  
 
  Lack of Consistency (X occurs, but Y doesn’t and vice versa) 
 
 Demonstrate that sometimes X happens without Y occurring, or Y happens without X, breaking the assumed causal link. 
 Example: If a company claims that a new software (X) boosts profits (Y), but there are cases where profits rise without the software or profits stay the same despite using the software, the causal claim is weakened.

The answer starts from here.
  The Main Problem  
The researchers found that planets with an element called Xentronium have more advanced technology. They think Xentronium  causes  the advanced technology.
Why D is the Best Answer
 Answer D tells us that Xentronium is usually found together with another mineral called Novarite. 
 This is important because: 
 
 Novarite is already known to help scientific progress 
 If both minerals are always found together, we can't tell which one is really causing the advancement 
 It's like saying ice cream sales cause swimming pool drownings (when really, hot weather causes both)

Option D offers the strongest challenge because it introduces an alternative explanation that completely accounts for the observed correlation, making the researchers' conclusion about Xentronium potentially spurious.

Now let's examine why the other options are weaker:
 (A)  While radiation might accelerate evolution, this doesn't clearly weaken the conclusion about Xentronium. The researchers could still argue that Xentronium is the primary factor, with radiation playing a secondary role. This creates some doubt but doesn't directly challenge the causal relationship the way option D does.
 (B)  Finding some advanced civilizations without Xentronium suggests there are multiple paths to technological advancement, but it doesn't invalidate Xentronium as one powerful path. The researchers never claimed Xentronium was the only way to achieve advancement, just that it leads to significantly higher development.
 (C)  This strengthens rather than weakens the researchers' conclusion. If extraction requires advanced technology, yet these planets still show more rapid overall development, it suggests that once civilizations reach the threshold to use Xentronium, it propels them forward even faster - supporting the idea that the element plays a causal role.
 (E)  This challenges the study's generalizability across galaxies but doesn't directly weaken the conclusion about the planets that were studied. The researchers could simply revise their claim to be galaxy-specific while maintaining that within the studied galaxy, Xentronium promotes advancement.

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

Thanks for the reply  napolean92728

While your explanation for (D) is logical

but not quite convinced on elimination for (C)

our conclusion is that Xentronium "casues" advanced civilization

Premise:
1) Xentronium causes scientific progress
2) Xentronium causes advanced tech

we can infer that for conclusion to happen, Xentronium comes first and then the advanced civilizations

but (C) is telling me that advanced civilizations are already there, and they are the ones who are mining Xentronium to get the benefits of scientific progress
so X causing advanced civilization is weakened here, 
but it's advanced civilization causing X

isn't it?

Ilanchezhiyan · Answer

If people had advanced to a level, before the discovery of Xentronium, then X did not play a role in their tech. advancement? Not able to understand why D is right

napolean92728 · Answer

Well, it's a pretty challenging question and indeed option C is a very strong contender, but a question can't have two correct answer options. Some people may think of it as reverse causation, which is Y --> X, but you need to think differently sometimes.

here's what I think about it,
  Why D Most Seriously Weakens the Conclusion  
Option D introduces what we call a  confounding variable  (Novarite). This completely undermines the causal claim about Xentronium because:
 
 If Xentronium and Novarite regularly appear together 
 And Novarite is already known to cause scientific advancement 
 Then the observed correlation between Xentronium and advancement could be entirely due to Novarite  
This is a devastating objection because it offers a complete alternative explanation for the observed pattern. Even if Xentronium has zero effect on advancement, we would still see exactly the same correlation the researchers observed.

Why C Is Not As Strong  
Option C states: "The extraction and use of Xentronium require already advanced technology, suggesting that civilizations must first develop sophisticated mining techniques before benefiting from the element."
Your reasoning about C is thoughtful, but here's why it doesn't weaken the conclusion as effectively:
First, let's consider the researchers' actual conclusion: "Xentronium itself must be responsible for the emergence of advanced civilizations, as planets rich in Xentronium consistently show rapid scientific progress."
If we look closely at this wording, the researchers claim a correlation between Xentronium-rich planets and advancement, not necessarily that primitive civilizations directly use raw Xentronium. The researchers' observation could still be valid even if option C is true.
 How? Consider these possibilities: 
 
 Perhaps trace amounts of Xentronium naturally enter the environment/water/atmosphere, creating subtle but significant effects on cognitive development 
 Maybe Xentronium affects the evolution of species on these planets over time 
 Perhaps radiation or other effects from Xentronium deposits influence development without direct extraction  
Option C suggests that full utilization of Xentronium requires advanced technology, but it doesn't rule out other mechanisms by which Xentronium could still be influencing development before full extraction capabilities exist.
Furthermore, even if civilizations need to reach a certain technological threshold before fully utilizing Xentronium, the element could still accelerate their development afterward, making the researcher's observation about "rapid scientific progress" still partially valid.

The Key Difference  
Option D completely invalidates the causal relationship by offering an alternative explanation that fully accounts for the observed correlation.
Option C challenges the simplicity of the causal relationship but doesn't eliminate the possibility that Xentronium influences development in some way.

Well, in the end I would say that C doesn't effectively weaken the conclusion as D does.

NextstopISB · Answer

Official Answer :

Correct Answer: (D) 
"Xentronium deposits are often found on planets that also contain high concentrations of another rare mineral, Novarite, which has been linked to rapid scientific advancements."

---

Understanding the Argument 
The researchers observed that planets with high concentrations of Xentronium tend to have more advanced civilizations. 
They concluded that Xentronium itself is responsible for technological progress.

This is a causal argument, meaning: 
- Premise: Planets rich in Xentronium have rapid technological progress. 
- Conclusion: Xentronium is the reason for their advancement.

To weaken this argument, we need to show that something else (not Xentronium) could be responsible for technological development.

---

Why Option (D) Weakens the Argument 
(D) states that planets with Xentronium also have high concentrations of Novarite, another rare mineral, and that Novarite is linked to rapid scientific advancements.

This weakens the argument by introducing an alternative explanation: 
- Maybe Novarite, not Xentronium, is the real cause of technological progress. 
- If every planet with Xentronium also has Novarite, then Xentronium might be irrelevant. 
- The researchers mistakenly assumed that Xentronium was responsible, when in reality, Novarite might be the key factor.

This breaks the direct causal link between Xentronium and technological progress, making the conclusion less convincing.

---

Eliminating the Wrong Answer Choices

(A) "Planets with Xentronium also tend to be in regions of space with high radiation, which accelerates certain types of technological advancements." 
- This introduces another factor (radiation) but does not directly refute the claim that Xentronium causes progress. 
- The argument could still hold if both Xentronium and radiation contribute to progress. 
- Since it does not break the direct causal link, it is not as strong as (D).

---

(B) "Some highly advanced civilizations have been discovered on planets completely devoid of Xentronium." 
- This shows that technological progress can happen without Xentronium, but it does not prove that Xentronium is useless. 
- The argument does not claim that Xentronium is the only path to scientific progress. 
- This is like saying, "Some Olympic athletes never drank protein shakes, so protein shakes do not help athletes." 
- It does not directly weaken the argument.

---

(C) "The extraction and use of Xentronium require already advanced technology, suggesting that civilizations must first develop sophisticated mining techniques before benefiting from the element." 
- This suggests that only advanced civilizations can use Xentronium, but it does not prove that Xentronium does not help them advance further. 
- The argument could still be true: once a civilization becomes advanced enough, Xentronium could help accelerate their progress. 
- This does not break the causal link between Xentronium and progress, so it is not as strong as (D).

---

(E) "The study was based only on planets within a single galaxy, and data from other galaxies suggest no strong correlation between Xentronium and technological development." 
- This questions the scope of the study, but it does not disprove the causal relationship in this specific galaxy. 
- The argument could still hold within this galaxy, even if it does not apply universally. 
- This is like saying, "A study on Earth shows that pollution affects climate change, but on other planets, this correlation does not exist." That does not mean the conclusion is false for Earth. 
- It weakens the generality of the claim but does not directly refute the link between Xentronium and technological progress in the given data set.

---

Final Answer: (D) 
- (D) is the best weakening answer because it introduces an alternative explanation (Novarite) for why planets with Xentronium have technological progress. 
- This breaks the assumption that Xentronium is the key factor. 
- Since the researchers' conclusion relies on Xentronium being the cause, showing that Novarite could be responsible severely weakens their argument.

SwethaReddyL · Answer

@Bunuel, I came with A and D after eliminating the others. But picked A as it introduces a new reason for these technological advancements. Even after reading all the explanations i still couldn't find D making more sense. 
I'd really like your 2 cents worth please.
And do you think this is a high-quality question worth 805+?

In an intergalactic study, researchers from the Andromeda Research Ins

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards