Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
08 Mar 2024, 07:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
69% (02:00) correct
31%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 1283
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Physicist: A kilogram of antimatter mixed with a kilogram of matter would, through their mutual annihilation, release half as much energy as all the gasoline burned in the United States in 2005. But this process will never provide a practical means of generating energy: no known natural sources of antimatter are available, and the most efficient antimatter generator now in existence would have to run for 100 trillion years to make a kilogram of antimatter.
Which of the following is an assumption required by the physicist’s argument?
A. No other fuel could release as much energy per kilogram as antimatter when it is mixed with matter.
B. Present physics indicates that antimatter is unlikely to exist anywhere in large enough quantities to be usable as fuel.
C. No antimatter has yet been found in large enough quantities to be perceived by the naked eye (without magnifying instruments).
D. We will never, in the future, build an antimatter generator efficient enough to produce, within a practical amount of time, a sufficient amount to be practical as a fuel.
E. Making a kilogram of antimatter would take less than half as much energy as was released by all the gasoline burned in the United States in 2005.
GMAT-Club-Forum-it1x4u5j.png [ 45.9 KiB | Viewed 5303 times ]
Which of the following is an assumption required by the physicist’s argument?
A. No other fuel could release as much energy per kilogram as antimatter when it is mixed with matter.
B. Present physics indicates that antimatter is unlikely to exist anywhere in large enough quantities to be usable as fuel.
C. No antimatter has yet been found in large enough quantities to be perceived by the naked eye (without magnifying instruments).
D. We will never, in the future, build an antimatter generator efficient enough to produce, within a practical amount of time, a sufficient amount to be practical as a fuel.
E. Making a kilogram of antimatter would take less than half as much energy as was released by all the gasoline burned in the United States in 2005.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-it1x4u5j.png [ 45.9 KiB | Viewed 5303 times ]
08 Mar 2024, 15:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Conclusion of the argument: The process of mixing matter and antimatter to produce energy will never provide a practical means of generating energy.
Supporting Evidence: No known natural sources of antimatter are available, and the most efficient antimatter generator now in existence would have to run for 100 trillion years to make a kilogram of antimatter.
Note the use of "will" in the conclusion. Hence, the author draws a very strong conclusion, that the process will never provide a practical means of generating energy, and in concluding the argument, the author assumes that the technology or generator now in existence cannot be enhanced beyond its current capacity. In addition, the author also assumes that all natural sources of antimatter are known to us.
Answer Choice Elimination
A. No other fuel could release as much energy per kilogram as antimatter when it is mixed with matter.
This assumption is not necessary for the physicist's argument. Even if other fuels could release as much energy per kilogram as antimatter, it wouldn't affect the conclusion as the conclusion revolves around the process of mixing matter and antimatter and doesn't concern other fuels. Hence, we can eliminate A.
B. Present physics indicates that antimatter is unlikely to exist anywhere in large enough quantities to be usable as fuel.
This option strengthens the argument however is not a necessary assumption. The passage already outlines that there are no natural sources of antimatter available. Whether physics indicates that information (that antimatter is unlikely to exist anywhere in large enough quantities to be usable as fuel) or not has no bearing on the conclusion. It can be well possible that antimatter has no physical proof yet.
C. No antimatter has yet been found in large enough quantities to be perceived by the naked eye (without magnifying instruments).
This option is not relevant to the argument's conclusion. Hence, we can eliminate B.
D. We will never, in the future, build an antimatter generator efficient enough to produce, within a practical amount of time, a sufficient amount to be practical as a fuel.
This is indeed what the author assumes. The author concludes that "the most efficient antimatter generator now in existence would have to run for 100 trillion". Hence the author concludes something very generic ("..produce energy will never provide a practical means..") based on the current scenario. Hence, this is the missing link.
E. Making a kilogram of antimatter would take less than half as much energy as was released by all the gasoline burned in the United States in 2005.
This assumption is not necessary for the physicist's argument. Energy consumption doesn't pay a huge role in drawing the conclusion. Eliminate E.
Option D
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-dnhdpz7a.png [ 45.9 KiB | Viewed 5213 times ]
18 Apr 2024, 23:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Physicist: A kilogram of antimatter mixed with a kilogram of matter would, through their mutual annihilation, release half as much energy as all the gasoline burned in the United States in 2005. But this process will never provide a practical means of generating energy: no known natural sources of antimatter are available, and the most efficient antimatter generator now in existence would have to run for 100 trillion years to make a kilogram of antimatter.
the portion in bold shows that the physicist expect this will never happen in the future
Summary: Since 1. No natural source of anti-matter
2. No way to generate sufficient quantity of antimatter exists - the proposed Idea of energy generation won't work
B. Present physics indicates that antimatter is unlikely to exist anywhere in large enough quantities to be usable as fuel. - this isn't assumed; it is already explicity mentioned in the argument that such sources don't exist but there is still the possiblity that they can be generated ( that's why the alternate method of anti-matter generation is suggested )
D. We will never, in the future, build an antimatter generator efficient enough to produce, within a practical amount of time, a sufficient amount to be practical as a fuel. - this is implied that the Physicist doesn't expect that any new technology for anti-matter generation will exist in future. - Correct option
the portion in bold shows that the physicist expect this will never happen in the future
Summary: Since 1. No natural source of anti-matter
2. No way to generate sufficient quantity of antimatter exists - the proposed Idea of energy generation won't work
B. Present physics indicates that antimatter is unlikely to exist anywhere in large enough quantities to be usable as fuel. - this isn't assumed; it is already explicity mentioned in the argument that such sources don't exist but there is still the possiblity that they can be generated ( that's why the alternate method of anti-matter generation is suggested )
D. We will never, in the future, build an antimatter generator efficient enough to produce, within a practical amount of time, a sufficient amount to be practical as a fuel. - this is implied that the Physicist doesn't expect that any new technology for anti-matter generation will exist in future. - Correct option
