GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Sep 2019, 08:35

### 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

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

# One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 06 Oct 2010
Posts: 47
One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 07 May 2011, 11:03
3
12
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:25) correct 50% (02:27) wrong based on 520 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens' (methane producing bacteria). In addition, there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials as well.

Which of the following is true of this argument?

A. It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.
B. Since this argument does not appeal to analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.
C. This argument has no evidence force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.
D. The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if the existence of methanognic bacteria were revealed to exist on other planets in our solar system through on-site explorations.
E. It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica without bacterial action at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.

Please provide explanation for your answer choice. I will upload OA soon. Thank you!

Originally posted by skbjunior on 07 May 2011, 10:29.
Last edited by skbjunior on 07 May 2011, 11:03, edited 1 time in total.
Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 465
Re: Evaluate the argument  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2011, 10:44
1
A: If some other compound can be linked between earth and comets - existence of which can be linked to bacteria,this will strengthen the arguement.
Intern
Joined: 06 Oct 2010
Posts: 47
Re: Evaluate the argument  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2011, 15:39
1
metallicafan wrote:
Why not C?

I also went with C originally. However, now I think that 1st part of answer choice C is alright (This argument has no evidence force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria ) but not the 2nd. We do not need to know the explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane. We just need to know that methanogens have extra-terrestrial presence.
Director
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 902
Re: Evaluate the argument  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2011, 20:53
A and C.

A is the classic case of correlation which is generally a wrong answer choice.However, in C the second part doesn't really support the conclusion hence its a weak answer choice compared to A.

Thus A.
Intern
Joined: 09 May 2011
Posts: 5
Re: Evaluate the argument  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2011, 01:16
Clearly A.....Any proof of other creature's existence will be helpful. C is eliminated as the second part is out of scope! Nice question! :D
Senior Manager
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 481
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2013, 00:56
Good question!! Lots of tricky language to throw you off and make you think the non-answer choice might be the answer by the complexity of the language. I went with A in a little over 2 minutes. The language in this choice was the most consistent to the stimulus. All the other answers used complex language and arguments to disguise that they were not really saying anything consistent to the argument.
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 233
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2015, 09:38
verbal bot picked a gem! Nice Question
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9647
Location: Pune, India
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2015, 23:21
skbjunior wrote:
One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens' (methane producing bacteria). In addition, there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials as well.

Which of the following is true of this argument?

A. It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.
B. Since this argument does not appeal to analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.
C. This argument has no evidence force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.
D. The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if the existence of methanognic bacteria were revealed to exist on other planets in our solar system through on-site explorations.
E. It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica without bacterial action at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.

Please provide explanation for your answer choice. I will upload OA soon. Thank you!

Here is a discussion of all the options. The questions uses intricate language to confuse the reader but is other wise quite straight forward.

Hoyle's Argument:
On Earth, all natural Methane is made by bacteria.
Natural Methane exists on comets.
Conclusion: Probably comets have bacteria.

A. It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.
If we find other compounds generated by bacteria on comets then the argument will be strengthened. The argument is strengthened by strengthening the conclusion. The conclusion is that comets have bacteria. If other bacteria produced compounds are found on comets, it WILL strengthen the possibility of bacteria on comets. Hence this options is true.

B. Since this argument does not appeal to analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.
This option says that the argument does not compare Earth and comet phenomena so there is no need to explain how bacteria make methane. But this is not true. We do need to know how bacteria make methane because it could help in evaluating the conclusion. Say, if bacteria need presence of oxygen to make methane and oxygen is not present on comets, it could affect our conclusion. So this option is not true.

C. This argument has no evidence force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.
This option says that unless the argument gives an explanation of how bacteria make methane, it is a worthless argument. The conclusion has no merit. This is not correct. 'How' is important to know (as discussed in option (B) above) but the argument still has relevance since the presence of methane points toward definite presence of bacteria on Earth so there is a possibility that presence of methane on comets points toward presence of methane on comets too.

D. The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if the existence of methanognic bacteria were revealed to exist on other planets in our solar system through on-site explorations.
If we found bacteria on other planets, possibility of bacteria on comets strengthens so our argument actually strengthens. This statement says that Hoyle's argument will weaken which is false.

E. It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica without bacterial action at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.
If natural methane was found without bacteria on Earth, it will weaken the possibility of bacteria on comets because then we would have a case where natural methane could exist without bacteria. This statement says that our conclusion will be strengthen which is incorrect.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2015
Posts: 123
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2015, 17:04
A hands-down tough question. Still interesting though, was confused between A and C and eventually went with C. Still not completely satisfied as to why A makes a better option than C?
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 284
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2015, 11:00
skbjunior wrote:
One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens' (methane producing bacteria). In addition, there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials as well.

Which of the following is true of this argument?

A. It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.
B. Since this argument does not appeal to analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.
C. This argument has no evidence force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.
D. The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if the existence of methanognic bacteria were revealed to exist on other planets in our solar system through on-site explorations.
E. It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica without bacterial action at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.

Please provide explanation for your answer choice. I will upload OA soon. Thank you!

Good one !!

A is the answer because if it is true it will strengthen the argument though not necessarily make it true.
If there are similar compounds other than methane which are present on both earth and planet and whose earthly presence is strongly correlated with the presence of bacteria, then it would give some strength to the conclusion that methanogens may be present on comets.

C sounds convincing until it talks about how TERRESTRIAL bacteria sythesize methane.
If in the second half of the option C the word terrestrial is changed to extra-terrestrial, then option C will be a correct option.

I donot mind Kudos

_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5660
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2018, 02:32
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On   [#permalink] 24 Feb 2018, 02:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

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