Last visit was: 11 Jul 2025, 05:27 It is currently 11 Jul 2025, 05:27
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
User avatar
guddo
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 27 Mar 2025
Posts: 347
Own Kudos:
6,407
 [84]
Given Kudos: 19
Posts: 347
Kudos: 6,407
 [84]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
80
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 10 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,527
Own Kudos:
5,001
 [33]
Given Kudos: 149
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,527
Kudos: 5,001
 [33]
22
Kudos
Add Kudos
11
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 16 Jun 2025
Posts: 811
Own Kudos:
142
 [1]
Given Kudos: 33
Products:
Posts: 811
Kudos: 142
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Ridss
Joined: 08 Feb 2024
Last visit: 29 Aug 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26
GPA: 7.9
Schools: ISB '26
Posts: 6
Kudos: 52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Found this ques for the passage on official practice test , couldnt find on gmatclub: 
­If astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center
than the author of the passage assumes, then the author's argument for which of the
following statements would be most weakened?


A-The comets in the solar system have odd, skewed orbits because they were
stirred up by a star passing nearby.

B-Generally, the farther a star is from the galactic center, the poorer it is in heavy
elements.

C-If a cluster of stars has dispersed, it would likely have dispersed along an arc.

D-The two meteorites must have been seeded with iron 60 that then decayed
into nickel 60.

E-The sun was born as part of a cluster of stars.

Answer E
If someone could explain , I marked opt B but its not correct

 ­
User avatar
HarshavardhanR
Joined: 16 Mar 2023
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 382
Own Kudos:
358
 [3]
Given Kudos: 55
Status:Independent GMAT Tutor
Affiliations: Ex - Director, Subject Matter Expertise at e-GMAT
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 382
Kudos: 358
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Ridss
Found this ques for the passage on official practice test , couldnt find on gmatclub: 
­If astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center
than the author of the passage assumes, then the author's argument for which of the
following statements would be most weakened?


A-The comets in the solar system have odd, skewed orbits because they were
stirred up by a star passing nearby.

B-Generally, the farther a star is from the galactic center, the poorer it is in heavy
elements.

C-If a cluster of stars has dispersed, it would likely have dispersed along an arc.

D-The two meteorites must have been seeded with iron 60 that then decayed
into nickel 60.

E-The sun was born as part of a cluster of stars.

Answer E
If someone could explain , I marked opt B but its not correct

 ­
­Hi @Ridss

Perhaps I can help.

From the passage:

The hypothesis (last line of para 1) -> Our sun and an exploding star (supernova) were packed together in a cluster (in other words implying that the sun was once part of a cluster of stars).

As per the author (2nd para) ->
- The above hypothesis could explain the presence of heavy elements in the sun

What is the author trying to say? ->
- Generally, the farther a star's birthplace is from the galactic center, the poorer the star is in heavy elements. 
- So, based on the above, ideally, the sun should not have much in terms of heavy elements.
- But it is a fact that the sun has has the presence of these heavy elements.
- What can explain this? The idea that the sun got these heavy elements from a "nearby" supernova.
- How was the sun nearby to a supernova? This should mean that the sun originated in a cluster of stars (then, a nearby exploding star makes sense)
- This would mean that the sun indeed originated in a cluster of stars.

Now,
Because - the sun is thought to be so far away from the galactic center, the author is able to build her case for:

1. The conclusion that the sun got its heavy elements from a nearby supernova
and for
2. The subsequent conclusion that the sun indeed orginated in a cluster of stars.

If - astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center than the author of the passage assumes

Then - the author would find it difficult to 

1. conclude that the sun got its heavy elements from a nearby supernova
and 
2. subsequently conclude that the sun indeed originated in a cluster of stars.

I hope you see why choice E makes most sense.

My issue with choice B -> Among the answer choices, we are looking for a statement the argument for which is weakened. Simply put, we are looking for a conclusion statement. A claim of some sort. Choice B states a factual truth used by the author as a premise, not a conclusion.

Choice B is a fact here. Irrespective of how far the sun actually is from the galactic center, it does not change the fact that typically, the farther the distance, the poorer the star in heavy elements.

Hope this helps!
___
Harsha
Enthu about all things GMAT | Exploring the GMAT space | My website: gmatanchor.com
User avatar
Ridss
Joined: 08 Feb 2024
Last visit: 29 Aug 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26
GPA: 7.9
Schools: ISB '26
Posts: 6
Kudos: 52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HarshR9
Ridss
Found this ques for the passage on official practice test , couldnt find on gmatclub: 
­If astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center
than the author of the passage assumes, then the author's argument for which of the
following statements would be most weakened?


A-The comets in the solar system have odd, skewed orbits because they were
stirred up by a star passing nearby.

B-Generally, the farther a star is from the galactic center, the poorer it is in heavy
elements.

C-If a cluster of stars has dispersed, it would likely have dispersed along an arc.

D-The two meteorites must have been seeded with iron 60 that then decayed
into nickel 60.

E-The sun was born as part of a cluster of stars.

Answer E
If someone could explain , I marked opt B but its not correct

 ­
­Hi @Ridss

Perhaps I can help.

From the passage:

The hypothesis (last line of para 1) -> Our sun and an exploding star (supernova) were packed together in a cluster (in other words implying that the sun was once part of a cluster of stars).

As per the author (2nd para) ->
- The above hypothesis could explain the presence of heavy elements in the sun

What is the author trying to say? ->
- Generally, the farther a star's birthplace is from the galactic center, the poorer the star is in heavy elements. 
- So, based on the above, ideally, the sun should not have much in terms of heavy elements.
- But it is a fact that the sun has has the presence of these heavy elements.
- What can explain this? The idea that the sun got these heavy elements from a "nearby" supernova.
- How was the sun nearby to a supernova? This should mean that the sun originated in a cluster of stars (then, a nearby exploding star makes sense)
- This would mean that the sun indeed originated in a cluster of stars.

Now,
Because - the sun is thought to be so far away from the galactic center, the author is able to build her case for:

1. The conclusion that the sun got its heavy elements from a nearby supernova
and for
2. The subsequent conclusion that the sun indeed orginated in a cluster of stars.

If - astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center than the author of the passage assumes

Then - the author would find it difficult to 

1. conclude that the sun got its heavy elements from a nearby supernova
and 
2. subsequently conclude that the sun indeed originated in a cluster of stars.

I hope you see why choice E makes most sense.

My issue with choice B -> Among the answer choices, we are looking for a statement the argument for which is weakened. Simply put, we are looking for a conclusion statement. A claim of some sort. Choice B states a factual truth used by the author as a premise, not a conclusion.

Choice B is a fact here. Irrespective of how far the sun actually is from the galactic center, it does not change the fact that typically, the farther the distance, the poorer the star in heavy elements.

Hope this helps!
Harsha­
­Understood , Thank you so much!
User avatar
pklinh1907
Joined: 29 Jul 2024
Last visit: 09 Jan 2025
Posts: 4
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here is another question that appeared in my GMAT mock test on MBA. Could anyone help to explain the correct answer, please?
If astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center than the author of the passage assumes, then the author's argument for which of the following statements would be most weakened?

A. The comets in the solar system have odd, skewed orbits because they were stirred up by a star passing nearby.
B. Generally, the farther a star is from the galactic center, the poorer it is in heavy elements.
C. If a cluster of stars has dispersed, it would likely have dispersed along an arc.
D. The two meteorites must have been seeded with iron 60 that then decayed into nickel 60.
E. The sun was born as part of a cluster of stars.
User avatar
kanikaa9
Joined: 19 Aug 2023
Last visit: 02 Jul 2025
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 708
Location: India
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Posts: 106
Kudos: 39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi pklinh1907

I tried solving the question, and this also seems on the harder side. IMO, it should be E.

The author repeatedly mentions that the sun has more heavy elements and then explains their presence based on a hypothesis that the sun was a part of a cluster of stars and a supernova save sun those heavy elements.

Now coming to the question - if the sun were closer to the galactic center, then by birth it would have more heavy elements (the author also mentions this in 3rd paragraph) hence the sun wouldn't be a part of any cluster. This is how choice E would be weakened.

I could be wrong. I am no expert, but this is my understanding.

Hello @MartyMurray - would you be kind enough to validate my response?
pklinh1907
Here is another question that appeared in my GMAT mock test on MBA. Could anyone help to explain the correct answer, please?
If astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center than the author of the passage assumes, then the author's argument for which of the following statements would be most weakened?

A. The comets in the solar system have odd, skewed orbits because they were stirred up by a star passing nearby.
B. Generally, the farther a star is from the galactic center, the poorer it is in heavy elements.
C. If a cluster of stars has dispersed, it would likely have dispersed along an arc.
D. The two meteorites must have been seeded with iron 60 that then decayed into nickel 60.
E. The sun was born as part of a cluster of stars.
User avatar
coopwrld
Joined: 05 Jun 2025
Last visit: 17 Jun 2025
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kanikaa9
Hi pklinh1907

I tried solving the question, and this also seems on the harder side. IMO, it should be E.

The author repeatedly mentions that the sun has more heavy elements and then explains their presence based on a hypothesis that the sun was a part of a cluster of stars and a supernova save sun those heavy elements.

Now coming to the question - if the sun were closer to the galactic center, then by birth it would have more heavy elements (the author also mentions this in 3rd paragraph) hence the sun wouldn't be a part of any cluster. This is how choice E would be weakened.

I could be wrong. I am no expert, but this is my understanding.

Hello @MartyMurray - would you be kind enough to validate my response?
pklinh1907
Here is another question that appeared in my GMAT mock test on MBA. Could anyone help to explain the correct answer, please?
If astronomers found evidence that the sun was born far closer to the galactic center than the author of the passage assumes, then the author's argument for which of the following statements would be most weakened?

A. The comets in the solar system have odd, skewed orbits because they were stirred up by a star passing nearby.
B. Generally, the farther a star is from the galactic center, the poorer it is in heavy elements.
C. If a cluster of stars has dispersed, it would likely have dispersed along an arc.
D. The two meteorites must have been seeded with iron 60 that then decayed into nickel 60.
E. The sun was born as part of a cluster of stars.
Why can a cluster of stars not be close to the galactic center and therefore have its members include the heavy elements characteristic of stars close to the galactic center while simultaneously being part of a cluster?
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
15828 posts