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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Christina scored 760 by having clear (ability) milestones and a trackable plan to achieve the same. Attend this webinar to learn how to build trackable milestones that leverage your strengths to help you get to your target GMAT score.
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Dec 2004, 05:25
8
65
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
25% (medium)
Question Stats:
74% (01:38) correct 26% (02:00) wrong based on 2043 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars (B) it fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth (C) It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth. (D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. (E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
Note: There are two questions available with the similar stimulus and same first line but different question. The other question (complete the passage) is discussed in: http://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-theoret ... 46449.html
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Apr 2008, 05:03
9
9
prasannar wrote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
A. It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars. The argument says "even ig bacteria did arrive on earth", so this point is irrelevant since we are assuming Mars had bacteria and it got to earth.
B. It fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth. Again, we have to assume that bacteria got transported to earth, since this is the basis of the argument.
C. It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth. its irrelevant how Martian bacteria got to earth.
D. It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. The argument says that martian bacteria that arrived on earth died out. But this choice makes it possible that martian bacteria thrived on earth and didn't die out.
E. It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out. this is irrelevant since we are trying to find out something that is against it arguement, i.e martian bacteria died out. This statement says nothing about martian bacteria
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Jul 2009, 01:32
5
4
D.
Conclusion: Since there is only one type of bacteria on earth, Martian bacteria has died out ( implies that all bacteria on Earth are the ones that originated on Earth )
There might be a possibility that all bacteria on Earth died out and so current strain of bacteria on Earth is the one that came from Mars. D brings out this flaw.
ankur55 wrote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out. The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms? A. It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars. B. It fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth. C. It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth. D. It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. E. It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Jul 2009, 01:40
2
1
D.
Evidence: All bacteria on earth is from "one source" Conclusion: bacteria from Mars have died out.
Author seems to have assumed that this "one source" is "earth". Option D directly attacks this assumption, by saying that all the bacteria from earth have died. So this "one source" must be Mars.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Mar 2010, 15:22
4
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. Premise However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacteria strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. Counter -premise So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out. - conclusion
Weaken question - find the choice that weakens the conclusion
A: It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars - no where related to conclusion ,also author says theoretically possible
B: It fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth no where related to conclusion ,also author says meteroite C: It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth -no where related to conclusion
D: It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria - correct ,if the bacteria on earth are arisen from mars bacteria that means mars bacteria did not die
E: It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out -no where related to conclusion
In weaken questions - look for the answer choices that attack the conclusion
_________________
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Dec 2010, 07:43
nifoui wrote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacteria strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticism: A: It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars B: It fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth C: It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth D: It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria E: It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out
Answer is D IMO . Reason is that the argument is based on the assumption that bacteria existed on earth prior to the skirmish with meteorites carrying Martian bacteria stains. D significantly weakens the conclusion "even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out" .
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Feb 2012, 23:18
raviram80 wrote:
Question 11: (W) It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out. The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms? E. It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
I will deeply explain only the correct choice because I'm seating at the office and do not have more time to do so.
First, the conclusion of the argument: If bacteria on Earth from Mars, they must died out.
The premise: Strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time
No two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets.
If we insert choice E in side YES, the bacteria origin from Earth died out, then the bacteria from Mars develop. The conclusion is broken.
In side NO, reversely, the conclusion is secured.
_________________
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Feb 2012, 23:56
1
I go with D.
the contention made by the author is that since all bacteria on earth are not different enough to have arisen from different planets, any bacteria that may have come from mars must have died out. D refutes this by suggesting the possibility that all the bacteria we see today could be from mars and that the bacteria that originated on earth could have died out. Hence D is correct
Problems with others:
A: Unrelated B: Unrelated C: Unrelated E: Even if some strains of bacteria that originated on earth did die out, this does not preclude the martian strains from dying out leaving some strains that originated on Earth. Note that the statement does not say all bacteria that originated from Earth died out, like D does.. which is what we need.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Jun 2013, 20:58
I picked E and realized why it's wrong. Who cares about strains of bacteria that originated on Earth? I picked this because I was thinking, oh well if the strains on earth died out, the bacteria that is from Mars MAY be comparable...but who cares? The conclusion is saying, so if bacteria DID come from Mars, it probably died out. D is the best choice because maybe the bacteria now IS from Mars...therefore it didn't die out (and we are assuming that the bacteria here is from Earth instead).
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Jun 2013, 00:31
Practicegmat wrote:
still I have conusion with (d) and (e)
Could anyone explain why (d) is wrong Regards
Hi Practicegmat.
I think your question is wrong cause D is correct. Probably, your question is "why E is wrong?" if that's true, so this is my explanation.
Conclusion is: if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out because no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets.
What should we attack? We weaken the conclusion by showing that all bacteria on Earth now were transported to Earth from Mars and NOT died out later.
But (E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
E does not attack the conclusion at all. There would be the case that some bacteria originated on Earth died out later and bacteria transported from Mars to Earth also died out.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Jul 2013, 23:15
chunjuwu wrote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars (B) it fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth (C) It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth. (D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. (E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Jul 2013, 00:07
1
jaituteja wrote:
chunjuwu wrote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars (B) it fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth (C) It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth. (D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. (E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
Fact: strains of bacteria from different planets have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time. Fact: NO two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets Conclusion: if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
Assumption: There is NOT ANY CASE that all bacterial strains on Earth came from Mars. Because if All bacterial on Earth originated from Mars ==> we CANNOT compare bacteria from Mars with bacteria on Earth to make conclusion, because they are the same.
D and E, which one is correct?
(D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. Correct. It attacks the conclusion by demonstrating the case that all bacterial strains on Earth actually traveled to Earth from Mars. we CANNOT compare bacteria from Mars with bacteria on Earth, because they are the same.
(E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out. Wrong. E does not weaken the point “all bacteria arrived on Earth from Mars must have died out” at all. Don’t go too FAR. You CANNOT assume that “strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out” = all bacteria living on Earth arrived from Mars. Because there would be the case that some bacteria originated form Earth died out later, but others still alive. Therefore, the conclusion based on the comparison MAY BE valid ==> You cannot weaken the conclusion by using E. That's why E differs from D.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jan 2014, 07:59
jaituteja wrote:
chunjuwu wrote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars (B) it fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth (C) It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth. (D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria. (E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
This is one of the most twister questions I have seen on GMAT. But not because of logic but sentence construction. I would have been scratching for long in understanding the meaning. Lets deconstruct.
Fact 1: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite.
Fact 2: However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and Not of much significance
Fact3: no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. It looked like an SC question to me for first 20 times I looked at it. But, guess GMAT is all about persistence Let us first remove this "no" from beginning to understand the meaning: "two bacterial strains on Earth are different" Now place "not" after "are": "two bacterial strains on Earth are not different"
So, this sentence basically says that bacterial strains on earth are so same that they must be of only one origin.
Conclusion: So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out. Bacteria from Mars, if on earth, must have died out.
Summary: We can have only one source for all bacteria on earth. So all bacteria from Mars, if reached earth, would have died out on earth.
What will weaken this? Bacteria from Mars didn't die. D says exactly that.
E says that earth bacteria died out. It is extra information but doesnt deal with Martian bacteria(which is part of conclusion)
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Oct 2018, 18:31
Quote:
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.
Conclusion :- Even if bacteria originated from Mars, they must have died out.
The argument makes above conclusion on the basis that strains of bacteria from different planets would have substantial differences in protein structure and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
Quote:
(A) It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars
Note:- In final conclusion argument agrees that bacteria may have arrived on Earth from Mars. We are not talking about whether it was developed or not on Mars. Irrelevant
Quote:
(B) it fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth
Note:- In final conclusion argument agrees that bacteria may have arrived on Earth from Mars.So this option is not the contention here. Out of Scope.
Quote:
(C) It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth.
We are not considering by what means bacteria were transported to earth.Irrelevant
Quote:
(D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria.
This may weaken the conclusion. All bacteria that now are there on earth may be transported from Mars. They are of same protein structure. Hence the author conclusion will be weakened. Bingo
Quote:
(E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.
So some bacteria originated on Earth and later died out. We are still not getting as to why Mars bacteria died out even if they were successful in reaching earth. Does this option gives us the reason to weaken the conclusion above.? NO Therefore we can cross it out as well. _________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All the Gods, All the Heavens, and All the Hells lie within you.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Jan 2019, 05:24
confusion between D and E.
I understand D weakens the conclusion. But to give E a thought, it is possible that all the strains of bacteria originated in earth die out, and thus the remaining ones are from Mars, doesn't that weaken the conclusion as well.
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Jan 2019, 06:04
1
mallya12 wrote:
confusion between D and E.
I understand D weakens the conclusion. But to give E a thought, it is possible that all the strains of bacteria originated in earth die out, and thus the remaining ones are from Mars, doesn't that weaken the conclusion as well.
This is a pretty original thought A bit too original for the GMAT though... While this is logically true, It is very very very unlikely that ALL strains of bacteria on earth would die out. And thus, this specific scenario doesn't weaken the argument very much - certainly less than D does.
_________________
Re: It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Jan 2019, 06:05
zoezhuyan wrote:
hi , can anyone help clarify "no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. " ?
it is hard for me to understand.
thanks ini advance.
The argument is saying that all of the existing bacteria on earth is similar - too similar for any of it have come from another planet
_________________
close
74% (01:38) correct 
A bit too original for the GMAT though... 
