In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, from 44 to 332 years

Hi PriyankaPalit7 - I'm NotAnExpert but I'll try to see if I can help before one of the Ninjas have a minute to respond.

Question: According to the passage, some researchers based their research about long-term earthquake prediction on which of the following facts?

I've underlined the word 'long-term' because it is the key part of identifying the correct answer. While the statement made in answer choice (D) is a completely true statement made in the passage (see the second underlined set of words I've highlighted in red below), it is a statement that is made with respect to short, not long-term earthquakes. The correct answer - answer choice (C) - is supported by the text that I've highlighted in green.

Hope this helps!

Please explain the answer for the 6th question in this RC. I chose A but the answer is C.

Hi, could someone help explain Question 4 please?

The relevant portion of the passage:

Paleoseismologists
have unearthed and dated geological features
such as fault scarps that were caused by
earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have
determined that the average interval between ten
earthquakes that took place at one site along the
San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was
132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,
from 44 to 332 years.
Now if the time period has increased from 22 years(as predicted by L and B) to 132, why cannot we infer that the frequency has significantly reduced? Wouldn't choice A be a correct answer?

Thanks in advance

The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

A. They can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but not how large it will be.
B. They can identify the regions where earthquakes are likely to occur but not when they will occur.
C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
D. They are likely to be more accurate at short-term earthquake prediction than at long-term earthquake prediction.
E. They can determine the regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past but not the regions where they are likely to occur in the future.

Statement1: . They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly, from 44 to 332 years

Statement2:In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22 years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992

about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes

C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are LIKELY to occur.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
can u explain last question and also this line(earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors,) why 2 contradictory words are used together.
In 5 question if option d wasn't mentioned can we say E option be correct though it isn't mentioned whether they looked or not looked on causes of earthquake ,but paleoseismologists looked at the causes.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
can u explain last question and also this line(earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors,) why 2 contradictory words are used together.
In 5 question if option d wasn't mentioned can we say E option be correct though it isn't mentioned whether they looked or not looked on causes of earthquake ,but paleoseismologists looked at the causes.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
can u explain last question and also this line(earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms
that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor
tremors,) why 2 contradictory words are used together.
In 5 question if option d wasn't mentioned can we say E option be correct though it isn't mentioned whether they looked or not looked on causes of earthquake ,but paleoseismologists looked at the causes.

Hey hannahkagalwala,

It is indeed an inference question, albeit detail oriented, since the question stem clearly asks us to look for an implication of the information given in a particular section of the passage.

Now let's look at choice A:

A. They (1) can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but (2) not how large it will be.

So, choice A talks about the two things:

1. can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur : Passage states, and I quote, " are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur
without large earthquakes. Basically, this information tells us that yes tremors do happen but the kind of tremors that are followed by earthquakes are not different from the kind of tremors that are NOT followed by earthquakes. Accordingly, if such tremors happen without a resulting earthquake, then the researchers cannot really tell us whether an earthquake is due.

2. not how large it will be. This can be directly understood from this section of the passage "nothing[/b] about the magnitude of an impending quake.

Therefore, since one part can be inferred and one cannot be, this choice is incorrect.

Now, let's take a look at Choice C.

C. They are unable to determine either the time or the place that earthquakes are likely to occur.

When I read this choice initially, the "place" aspect did throw me off a little-bit, but after reading the information one more time and looking at the other answer choices, I went along with Choice C. So, here are my cents on it:



1. unable to determine either the time - This portion, as you agree to an extent, is correct for the reasons explained above (refer to point no. 1 under the explanation for choice A for more detail).


2. place that earthquakes are likely to occur - Alright, so let's look at how the whole information about tremors observed "nearby" places is given to us. We are basically told that after stress increases beyond a particular point in the rocks, something happens, leading to tremors and other things in the areas nearby to these rocks. Right? But then we are also told that just because these tremors occur, we cannot predict that an earthquake will follow. So, when you combine these two pieces of information, it means that say at place xyz, the researchers observe tremors, but they can't really say that at this place, there will be an earthquake. This is why the whole "place" angle makes sense - even though one is not very comfortable with it in the beginning.

Hope the above explanation helps.

Cheers!