Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 05:02 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 05:02
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3 
Sub 505 Level|   Science|   Short Passage|                              
User avatar
IN2MBB2PE
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2020
Last visit: 17 Feb 2024
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 130
Kudos: 35
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 28 Dec 2022, 08:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

Passage breakdown


In passages that are one, long paragraph, it can be helpful to split the passage up. In this explanation, the passage will be split into three sections:

  • Section 1: from the start to “...thickness of the barrier increases.”
  • Section 2: from “Though the extreme rapidity…” to “...limit as barrier thickness increases.”
  • Section 3: from “Several recent experiments have…” to the end of the passage.

In the first section, the author introduces the concept of quantum tunneling.

  • There is a small probability that a particle will tunnel through a barrier. This probability decreases as the barrier thickness increases.

In the second section, the author explains the hypothesis that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

  • He/she then explains the calculations that led to this hypothesis.

In the third section, the author cites experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis introduced in section 2.


For more on the process of breaking down RC passages, check out this article and our live RC videos.


Explanations for individual questions


Show more

Hello Folks GMATNinja - as there's no explanation for the Question 1, I have some reservations about this one.

I was stuck between (B) and (E). I picked E on first pass and then on a redo I ended up picking B. My confusion came with words of the answer choices.

B) Explain the evidence by which Winger and Eisenbud discovered the phenomenon of tunneling
E) Explain the basis for Winger and Eisenbud's hypothesis

What is the difference between - "Evidence" vs. "Basis" and "Discovery" vs. "Hypothesis"?

Why can't the calculations serve as evidence? You can prove something empirically? For example, mass of our earth, distance between earth and moon, these are all proved based on calculations and not as per evidence. This is why I ended up picking Answer choice (B) thinking evidence and calculations are same or calculations CAN indeed serve as evidence.

Also, can "Hypothesis" serve as a "Discovery"?
I guess not as I came across this




and learned that science is divided into TWO parts - "Discovery Bases" and "Hypothesis Based", but am I suppose to know this? It seems very topic specific knowledge to me.
User avatar
waytowharton
User avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2021
Last visit: 16 Sep 2025
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 409
Posts: 130
Kudos: 18
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 16 Jan 2023, 11:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB GMATNinja

I have doubts in option E of question 2

Q542. RC00301-02. The passage implies that if tunneling time reached no maximum in increasing with barrier thickness, then

(E) Successful tunneling would occur even less frequently than it does

Doubt 1 - what does option E mean? My understanding is that option E means that successful tunneling would occur even less frequently if tunneling time reached no maximum than if tunneling time has reached maximum.

If my understanding is correct than I get that why option E is incorrect because probability to tunnel has no relation with tunneling time. If not, then please do explain.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
 [2]
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 16 Jan 2023, 21:07
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
waytowharton
KarishmaB GMATNinja

I have doubts in option E of question 2

Q542. RC00301-02. The passage implies that if tunneling time reached no maximum in increasing with barrier thickness, then

(E) Successful tunneling would occur even less frequently than it does

Doubt 1 - what does option E mean? My understanding is that option E means that successful tunneling would occur even less frequently if tunneling time reached no maximum than if tunneling time has reached maximum.

If my understanding is correct than I get that why option E is incorrect because probability to tunnel has no relation with tunneling time. If not, then please do explain.
Show more


Yes, the passage gives the relation between the 'time taken to tunnel' and 'speed of the particles'
If time taken to tunnel reaches a maximum after which it stays the same with thickness (more distance), it implies that the speed of the particle must be increasing. Then, if at any given thickness, time stays the same, that means that speed increases infinitely and has no upper limit. Then the speed can be more than speed of light.

There is no relation given between probability to tunnel (how often will the particle tunnel) and the time taken to tunnel (whether it reaches a max or not).
Hence option (E) is irrelevant.
User avatar
kevsaf95
User avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2020
Last visit: 30 Oct 2023
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 54
Location: Peru
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.8
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 16
Kudos: 5
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 10 Jun 2023, 08:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Karishma,
I got confused here to identify "the earliest scientific investigator"

Isn't it right to compare "Wigner and Eisenbud" vs "Raymond Chiao and colleagues"?
I took Wigner and Eisenbud as the earlier investigators

What am I misunderstanding?

Greetings,
Kevin

KarishmaB
saby1410
VeritasKarishma

please explain qustion 3

option c & D


Q543. RC00301-04. Which of the following statements about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling can be inferred from the passage?

(A) They found it difficult to increase barrier thickness continually.
(B) They anticipated the later results of Chiao and his colleagues.
(C) They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light.
(D) They were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling.
(E) They made use of photons to study the phenomenon of tunneling.

Note this:
... Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

Though quantum tunnelling was noted in 1932, it was much later than faster than light travel concept was proposed.
So option (C) is correct.

Nowhere in the passage does it say that they were not able to observe instances initially.
Show more
User avatar
BottomJee
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2019
Last visit: 09 Jun 2025
Posts: 996
Own Kudos:
1,328
Given Kudos: 1,009
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q82 V81 DI82
GMAT 1: 430 Q31 V19
GMAT 2: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 3: 660 Q48 V33
GPA: 3.26
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q82 V81 DI82
GMAT 3: 660 Q48 V33
Posts: 996
Kudos: 1,328
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 29 Jul 2023, 19:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This passage is a classic example of easy to read & understand but difficult to answer one. :cry:
User avatar
NSG081116
User avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2022
Last visit: 24 Jan 2025
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 18
Location: India
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 03 Aug 2023, 23:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ManishKM1
GMATNinja
kunal1608
Could experts please elaborate on the 3rd question explaining why exactly is option D incorrect .

The official explanation says "The passage indicates that by 1932, investigators had noted the rapidity of quantum tunneling; although this does not entail that they observed the phenomenon, it is consistent with their having been able to do so."
Quote:
Which of the following statements about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling can be inferred from the passage?
A) They found it difficult to increase barrier thickness continually.
B) They anticipated the later results of Chiao and his colleagues.
C) They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light.
D) They were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling.
E) They made use of photons to study the phenomenon of tunneling.
Refer to the following lines:
Quote:
Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.
What do we know about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling? We know that they noted the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling. We also know that they did NOT hypothesize that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

From that information, can we infer that "they were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling."? Not necessarily. Perhaps they observed instances of successful tunneling and perhaps they did not (as described in the OE, "although this does not entail that they observed the phenomenon, it is consistent with their having been able to do so"). Regardless, we certainly cannot infer that they were UNABLE to observe instances of successful tunneling.

In other words, we know that they might have observed instances of successful tunneling, but we cannot infer that they were unable to do so.

I hope that helps explain why (D) must be eliminated!

GMATNinja
I have a similar question, when they noted QT in 1932, how can C be a correct option? "They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light." They noted it but were unable to hypothesis. Can you pls help.
Show more

GMATNinja I also have the same question . How is C the answer. By following the POE?
User avatar
rickyric395
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2020
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 113
Own Kudos:
100
Given Kudos: 65
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 113
Kudos: 100
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 06 Aug 2023, 22:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
kunal1608
Could experts please elaborate on the 3rd question explaining why exactly is option D incorrect .

The official explanation says "The passage indicates that by 1932, investigators had noted the rapidity of quantum tunneling; although this does not entail that they observed the phenomenon, it is consistent with their having been able to do so."
Quote:
Which of the following statements about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling can be inferred from the passage?
A) They found it difficult to increase barrier thickness continually.
B) They anticipated the later results of Chiao and his colleagues.
C) They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light.
D) They were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling.
E) They made use of photons to study the phenomenon of tunneling.
Refer to the following lines:
Quote:
Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.
What do we know about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling? We know that they noted the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling. We also know that they did NOT hypothesize that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

From that information, can we infer that "they were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling."? Not necessarily. Perhaps they observed instances of successful tunneling and perhaps they did not (as described in the OE, "although this does not entail that they observed the phenomenon, it is consistent with their having been able to do so"). Regardless, we certainly cannot infer that they were UNABLE to observe instances of successful tunneling.

In other words, we know that they might have observed instances of successful tunneling, but we cannot infer that they were unable to do so.

I hope that helps explain why (D) must be eliminated!
Show more
GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep
Quote:
Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.
Show more
It says that earliest investigators were aware of tunneling , but W&E hypothesized something. It can imply that maybe they anticipated certain behaviour such as the one in hypothesis, but were unable to postulate it maybe due to limitations wrt maths/physics understanding.
Eg- In earlier times, everyone was aware of gravity(not the term but the effects of it) but Newton was the one who hypothesized it.
So doesn't it imply that they might have anticipated something similar to what Chiao and his colleagues did but were unable to hypothesize due the limitations I pointed?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
 [1]
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 07 Aug 2023, 03:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rickyric395

GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep
Quote:
Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.
It says that earliest investigators were aware of tunneling , but W&E hypothesized something. It can imply that maybe they anticipated certain behaviour such as the one in hypothesis, but were unable to postulate it maybe due to limitations wrt maths/physics understanding.
Eg- In earlier times, everyone was aware of gravity(not the term but the effects of it) but Newton was the one who hypothesized it.
So doesn't it imply that they might have anticipated something similar to what Chiao and his colleagues did but were unable to hypothesize due the limitations I pointed?
Show more

Question 3:
Q543. RC00301-04. Which of the following statements about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling can be inferred from the passage?

(A) They found it difficult to increase barrier thickness continually.
(B) They anticipated the later results of Chiao and his colleagues.
(C) They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light.
(D) They were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling.
(E) They made use of photons to study the phenomenon of tunneling.

First of all, we need to figure out who "the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling" were.
The earliest investigators mentioned are "Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, (these were the earliest investigators)... not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud (they came afterwards)—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

So the passage says that the earliest investigators did note the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling but only much later was it hypothesised (theorised) that the particles could travel faster than light. That means that the earliest investigators did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light. That thought occurred to other investigators later.
Hence (C) is correct.

No other option makes sense.

rickyric395 - There is no reason to believe that it did come to their mind but they did not say anything because of some limitations. They did not say any such thing is possible (even if they could not prove it, they just had to hypothesize) and that implies that they did not think that it was possible - whatever the limitations.
If anyone before Newton had pointed out that there is a certain force that Earth exerts on all things, then he/she would have hypothesized gravity first, not Newton. No one can be credited with a thought until and unless they speak out. It is as good as they never had that thought. We can infer that they did not think of it.
Also, is there any other option that comes even close?
User avatar
rickyric395
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2020
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 113
Own Kudos:
100
Given Kudos: 65
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 113
Kudos: 100
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 08 Aug 2023, 22:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
rickyric395

GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep
Quote:
Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.
It says that earliest investigators were aware of tunneling , but W&E hypothesized something. It can imply that maybe they anticipated certain behaviour such as the one in hypothesis, but were unable to postulate it maybe due to limitations wrt maths/physics understanding.
Eg- In earlier times, everyone was aware of gravity(not the term but the effects of it) but Newton was the one who hypothesized it.
So doesn't it imply that they might have anticipated something similar to what Chiao and his colleagues did but were unable to hypothesize due the limitations I pointed?

Question 3:
Q543. RC00301-04. Which of the following statements about the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling can be inferred from the passage?

(A) They found it difficult to increase barrier thickness continually.
(B) They anticipated the later results of Chiao and his colleagues.
(C) They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light.
(D) They were unable to observe instances of successful tunneling.
(E) They made use of photons to study the phenomenon of tunneling.

First of all, we need to figure out who "the earliest scientific investigators of quantum tunneling" were.
The earliest investigators mentioned are "Though the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling was noted as early as 1932, (these were the earliest investigators)... not until 1955 was it hypothesized—by Wigner and Eisenbud (they came afterwards)—that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

So the passage says that the earliest investigators did note the extreme rapidity of quantum tunneling but only much later was it hypothesised (theorised) that the particles could travel faster than light. That means that the earliest investigators did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light. That thought occurred to other investigators later.
Hence (C) is correct.

No other option makes sense.

rickyric395 - There is no reason to believe that it did come to their mind but they did not say anything because of some limitations. They did not say any such thing is possible (even if they could not prove it, they just had to hypothesize) and that implies that they did not think that it was possible - whatever the limitations.
If anyone before Newton had pointed out that there is a certain force that Earth exerts on all things, then he/she would have hypothesized gravity first, not Newton. No one can be credited with a thought until and unless they speak out. It is as good as they never had that thought. We can infer that they did not think of it.
Also, is there any other option that comes even close?
Show more

Thanks for response KarishmaB , I was under the impression that since earliest researchers were aware of rapidity, they might be hoping something more i.e certain result such as Chiao's experiment result in this case. But I understand the error in my reasoning. Thanks for pointing it out.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 16 Dec 2023, 12:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ManishKM1


GMATNinja

I have a similar question, when they noted QT in 1932, how can C be a correct option? "They did not suppose that tunneling particles could travel faster than light." They noted it but were unable to hypothesis. Can you pls help.

GMATNinja I also have the same question . How is C the answer. By following the POE?
Show more
Sorry to be late to the party, but in case it's helpful: we've answered this question in this post. Check it out and let us know if you have any other questions!
User avatar
ankitmahla
User avatar
Joined: 27 Apr 2024
Last visit: 17 Aug 2024
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 27 Apr 2024, 04:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

Aardwolf

Quote:

According to the passage, the time it takes for the particle to tunnel will increase until the tunneling time reaches a certain maximum. As the barrier thickness (the distance traveled by the particle) is increased, the time it takes the particle to cross the barrier also increases, but only up to a certain point. After that maximum tunneling time has been reached, we could theoretically double the thickness of the barrier and, since the tunneling time cannot increase any further, the speed of the particle must be doubled.

In other words, if the tunneling time has a maximum, the speed of the particle must increase without limit as the barrier thickness is increased.

But the question asks, "What if there was no maximum tunneling time?" In that case, the tunneling time CAN increase indefinitely as barrier thickness is increased. Thus, we would NOT expect the speed to increase without limit as barrier thickness is increased. Instead, as the thickness is increased, the tunneling time would increase and the speed could remain relatively constant.

I hope that helps!
Hi GMATNinja

It is not stated in the question that tunnel time and barrier thickness should increase in similar proportions. What if the tunneling time continued to increase but to a lower extent than the barrier's thickness? In that case, tunneling speed would still increase without limits. We are adding an assumption to answer C.

Of course one possibility is, as you hypothesized, that each time barrier thickness increases by say 50%, tunneling time will increase by 50% as well, keeping the tunneling speed constant.

But what if each time barrier thickness increases by 50%, tunneling time increased by only 5%? Tunneling time would have no maximum, continue to increase indefinitely, and the same thing would happen for the tunneling speed.
Aardwolf, the scenario you've proposed is certainly within the realm of possibility. But let's review the given information and the specific language of the question and answer choices:

Quote:
Their grounds were calculations that suggested that the time it takes a particle to tunnel through a barrier increases with the thickness of the barrier until tunneling time reaches a maximum
So we know that tunneling time increases with barrier thickness up to a point. Because a max time is reached, the scientists hypothesize "that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light." If no such max time existed, the scientists would not EXPECT tunneling speed to increase without limit. Does that mean that there is absolutely no way that tunneling speed could increase without limit. No... as you described in your example, this is still possible.

In other words, given Evidence A (tunneling time increases up to a certain point), the scientists expect Hypothesis X (tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light). This IMPLIES that in the absence of Evidence A, the scientists would have no reason to believe something as unexpected as Hypothesis X. Instead, we would expect the particles to travel no faster than the speed of light. Without Hypothesis X, we would not EXPECT tunneling speed to increase without limit, so (D) works.

More importantly, all of the other choices are indefensible and must be eliminated using POE. We are not asked to prove with 100% certainty that tunneling speed could not increase without limit. But in the absence of certain evidence, we certainly would not EXPECT it to do so. (D) is the best answer.
Show more
I AM STILL NOT ABLE TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS. In my view Evidence A(tunneling time increases up to a certain point) is not the direct reason for hypothesis. Instead because the tunneling time stays same implies speed increase proportional to lenght increase i.e. speed increase without limit is the right basis for hypothesis from scientist above­. So appropriate Evidence A in a way should be : speed increase without limit implies tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light. we cann't establish a direct causal implication between tunneling time increases up to a certain point implying tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light without having a sufficient assumption of Distance=speed X time.

So this means according to me none of the answer seems plausible. because if now we say no limit to time we cann't sat anything about speed i.e. it could be constant, decline or increase without limit. I think even option D is also Indefensible.­
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
130
Given Kudos: 5,193
Location: India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 534
Kudos: 130
Most attempts by physicists to send particles faster than the speed of 13 May 2025, 22:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi IN2MBB2PE

GMATNinja has explained question-1 in one of his videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hkekoF ... =14&t=745s at 56:00.


IN2MBB2PE
GMATNinja

Passage breakdown


In passages that are one, long paragraph, it can be helpful to split the passage up. In this explanation, the passage will be split into three sections:

  • Section 1: from the start to “...thickness of the barrier increases.”
  • Section 2: from “Though the extreme rapidity...” to “...limit as barrier thickness increases.”
  • Section 3: from “Several recent experiments have...” to the end of the passage.

In the first section, the author introduces the concept of quantum tunneling.

  • There is a small probability that a particle will tunnel through a barrier. This probability decreases as the barrier thickness increases.

In the second section, the author explains the hypothesis that tunneling particles sometimes travel faster than light.

  • He/she then explains the calculations that led to this hypothesis.

In the third section, the author cites experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis introduced in section 2.


For more on the process of breaking down RC passages, check out this article and our live RC videos.


Explanations for individual questions



Hello Folks GMATNinja - as there's no explanation for the Question 1, I have some reservations about this one.

I was stuck between (B) and (E). I picked E on first pass and then on a redo I ended up picking B. My confusion came with words of the answer choices.

B) Explain the evidence by which Winger and Eisenbud discovered the phenomenon of tunneling
E) Explain the basis for Winger and Eisenbud's hypothesis

What is the difference between - "Evidence" vs. "Basis" and "Discovery" vs. "Hypothesis"?

Why can't the calculations serve as evidence? You can prove something empirically? For example, mass of our earth, distance between earth and moon, these are all proved based on calculations and not as per evidence. This is why I ended up picking Answer choice (B) thinking evidence and calculations are same or calculations CAN indeed serve as evidence.

Also, can "Hypothesis" serve as a "Discovery"?
I guess not as I came across this




and learned that science is divided into TWO parts - "Discovery Bases" and "Hypothesis Based", but am I suppose to know this? It seems very topic specific knowledge to me.
Show more
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
17306 posts
miag
189 posts