Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meetin

WITH AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE RC FUN. I just typed what was going on in my mind while I was reading this passage. I thought to share it. It might have some typos or some stretched lyrics or extensions. Excuse that. Just an attempt. gmatexam439 what you think.

Summary of the passage.

Para-1
Before 1965 geologists thought that the heat that is produced in the SAF's (San Andreas Fault) is because of the friction between the rocks. However, in 1965 henyey (Hilary) found out that the temperature in the holes that were drilled in the SAF was not as elevated as thought by geologists. The geologists expected that the temperature will be high. Now the reason these geologists thought that the temperature in the drill holes should be high is because these geologists based their calculations of temperature measurement based on rocks that are made of granite or limestone. But they did not include the fact that rocks can be made of clay as well as clay was found in the samples from fault zone.

Predicting/ Forecasting/Wondering:
if the rocks are made of clay then can they produce heat without frictions or what the hell is going on here. Also, why are the temperatures in the holes lower than expected.

Para- 2
So in 1922 my boy Byerlee(Brue-Lee) tested the clay rocks, granite rocks and lime rocks 10 to 15 kilometers below the earth's surface to see if all these three types of rocks can produce friction. Wait what 10 to 15km below the earth’s surface. How the heck did he get an instrument that low into the ground. It's insane what these geologists can do han.

Anyways whatever method he used. He found out that the rocks made of clay produced as much friction as rocks that were made of granite and limestone. Now Bruce-Lee also mentioned that 10 to 15km below the earth, there are thousands of atmospheres of pressure. In other words, there is a hell a lot of pressure down in the earth.

So bruce-lee finds out what rocks are made of does not matter and what matters is how hard the rocks push against each other. If intensely with which they push against each other is higher then hotter they will become. So in nutshell the pressure not the properties of rock that determines the frictional heating. Hmm, it's almost like it does not matter how big or muscular you are but what matters is how smart you are. And Kudos to bruce-lee for finding all this info out.

Now after Hilary and Bruce-Lee found all this info. These Geologists wonder that can the pressurized water that's between the plates in the SAF is reducing the friction in between these plates. So is it that this water is pushing these rocks away from each other. Can this be the case????



Q What does the passage tell us about Hilary’s finding of the temperature in SAF?
Prethink: Hilary found that the temperatures in drill holes are low and there could be a chance that all the geologists got all their calculations wrong coz they based the calculations of temperature levels on the rocks made of granite and line. They didn’t consider the possibility of rocks being made of clay.

A
Meaning: Scientist still doesn’t have a definite explanation for Hilary’s findings.
Reasoning:Yes. Coz these scientists are still wondering.

B
Reasoning: I mean based on the passage: Hilary’s research is the recent research. So the research itself does not ask for any modification.

C
Reasoning: No. it should not.

D
Reasoning: Not at all. Because before Hilary’s finding they didn’t even consider clay rocks possibility

E
Reasoning: Passage tells us nothing about duplication although I will be interested to learn.


Q What is the author trying to tell me here. I mean whats the point and whats this passage all about?
Prethink: Hilary in 1965 shed a whole new light on the possibilities of low temperatures in holes and Hillary’s wisdom is somewhat supported by what bruce-lee had done in 1922. The point is we have made some progress in answering the low-temperature mystery but it's yet to be confirmed.

A
Reasoning: He is not trying to tell us the methods that Brule-Lee or Hilary used.

B
Reasoning: Bingo and dingo. That’s what’s going on here!

C
Reasoning: Author is not telling just about an assumption but the author is telling us how the assumption was acted upon and the reasoning behind it.

D
Reasoning: Author is not questioning if what Hilary and bruce-lee found or the new direction in which geologists are going is right or wrong.

E
Reasoning: Now we can say that he is presenting bruce-lee’s findings to try to support Hillary's point. However, this answer option is too narrow. From a macro level, he is trying to sort of tell us whats up with this mystery. In other words whats new with this mystery.


Q: So for the most part passage says that Hillary’s findings in regards to the temperature in SAF(San Andreas Fault) made an amazing contribution. But please elaborate what the contributions were actually or how did her findings made the amazing contributions:

Prethink: It's like we all have been looking for keys in the house and Hilary just said: guys did you check out the key hanger. The keys might just be there. In other words, geologists knew that there is clay in the samples but they never considered the possibility of rocks made of clay or making their calculations based on pressure instead of properties of rocks.

A
Reasoning: Our mind here can say oh yeah. This is the right option. But look closely Hilary did not say that the calculations are wrong or there is an error in the calculation. She just found out that the temp is low in the holes and this finding initiated an alternate possibility. So for example in quant, we can solve for X correctly but rather we were supposed to solve for Y. Our calculation is correct but we just solved for a wrong variable.

B
Reasoning: Not at all. She did not say what all types of clay rocks are there.

C
Reasoning: We have no idea about the technique that she used and neither is she a proponent of one over the other technique.

D
Meaning: the word used is suggested. And the basic meaning of this answer choice is that geologists assumption is inaccurate.
Reasoning: Yes. Because passage did refer that Hillary’s findings of low-temperature levels did undermine the assumption of geologists.

E
Reasoning: No her research did not confirm that
[u]


Please appreciate the effort with KUDOS! muchas gracias(thank you)

visheshsahni I wanted to share my method of approaching & attempting this passage. Your feedback about my approach and reasoning will be much appreciated. Do you agree with the reasoning I have provided for each answer choice and with the content of the summary?

Took me about 7 minutes for all 3 questions and passage. Need to figure out a trick to run through the questions faster..

I thought the first question was quite interesting so I wanted to share my thought process.

For Q1. we know from the passage that Henyey discovered that the rocks in between fault lines aren't as hot as previously thought to be. In the second passage we learn that there could be a bunch of different reasons for this, but we aren't sure. This means:

A) Correct, for the reasons exactly mentioned above
B) Doesn't suggest that Henyey's explanation should be modified, it only suggests that we don't have an exact answer into what's going on. If we wanted to modify the explanation what would we modify it to? The passage gives us no information.
C) Same as B
D) Henyey's research actually proves the opposite of what geologists have thought.
E) The passage says nothing of this sort.

Geologists' pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite <...>. [ this lead them to -> ] Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected.

Q3 or 4:
(D) suggested that geologists had inaccurately assumed that giant rock plates that meet at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction "suggested" plays a great trick here, making this choice correct, or at least I suppose that's the reason to pick D
(A) revealed an error in previous measurements of temperature in the San Andreas Fault zone but what about A? It seems reasonable based on the portions I've given above although it would also seem to be a stretch since the calculations might as well have been correct, but the basis (the types of rocks) was apparently incorrect

Please help me to spot what's wrong with A over here.

Thanks

workout GMATNinjaTwo u1983 GMATNinja SajjadAhmad Gnpth or anybody else please

The passage says that "Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction..." The passage doesn't say anything about ACTUAL temperature measurements before 1965. For all we know, there were no such measurements. In that case, we cannot say that Henyey's finding revealed an error (measurements that never existed can't have an error!).

Question #3, as posted, doesn't seem quite right ("The passage mostly agree..."). If anyone encounters this question in the software, please confirm that all questions are posted accurately and/or post screenshots. Thanks!

My take:
C would be correct if it stated "particular experiments" rather than just an "experiment". The passage was explaining several experiments, hence an "experiment" seems invalid.
D The author questioned nothing, s/he only mentioned several findings.

B would be the best bet.

Hope it helps!

3) The passage mostly agree that Heney’s findings about temperature in the San Andreas Fault made the greatest contribution in that they
A. revealed an error in previous measurements of temperature in the San Andreas Fault zone
B. indicated the types of clay present in the rocks that form the San Andreas Fault
C. established the superiority of a particular technique for evaluating data concerning friction in the San Andreas Fault
D. suggested that geologists had inaccurately assumed that giant rock plates that meet at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction
E. confirmed geologists’ assumptions about the amount of friction generated by common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite

I have serious trouble with this one, During my POE I came down to B and D , But Option D seems fishy because it was never questionedif friction is creating heat but rather it question if the heat produced by friction is due to rubbing or what since its temp. is not same as it should be if rubbing was there

A.Scientists have yet to formulate a definitive explanation for Henyey’s findings.
B.Recent research suggests that Henyey’s explanation for the findings should be modified.
C.Henyey’s findings had to be recalculated in light of Byerlee’s 1992 experiment.
D.Henyey’s findings provided support for an assumption long held by geologists.
E.Scientists have been unable to duplicate Henyey’s findings using more recent experimental methods.
Answer:

Hi VictorRamplingyai,

Please refer the explanation for Question 1 here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/prior-to-196 ... l#p1302144

Not sure what did want to ask, let me know if you still have doubts.

Thanks.

Hi, GMATNinja Sajjad1994 bm2201, can you please help with Question 4?

I don't understand how D is the answer. We are asked about the impact of Henyey's findings in 1965. In 1965, Henyey just said that the temperature is less than what was assumed.

Hi VIVA1060,

D for Question 4 can be inferred from: "Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected."

Before Henyey's findings in 1965, scientists assumed that the plates meeting at San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction, but after the findings, the scientists realized that since the temperature in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected, implying that temperature/heat could have not been caused by the friction alone between the plates.
Thus D correctly points that geologists had geologists had inaccurately that the giant rock plates generated heat through friction.


Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

Hi Experts,

I'm unable to understand why for Q3, the answer is D. As per Option D, Henyey's findings suggested that it wasn't friction that was causing the heat, however, later in the passage it becomes clear that it was Byerlee's work that suggested this and not Henyey's.

Looking forward to your expert response.

Question 3

Let’s take a look at (D):

All that (D) says is that Henyey’s work SUGGESTED that geologists had inaccurately assumed that heat was generated through friction. You’re correct to note that it is Byerlee’s work that confirms this suggestion by finding that even weaker materials would produce friction under such pressure. But Henyey is the first to suggest that the geologists’ assumption may not be correct. Ultimately, Henyey’s work proves important because it turns out that the geologists, indeed, were wrong to assume that the giant rock plates generated heat through friction. And it was Henyey’s work that provided the basis for Byerlee’s tests to confirm that geologists were wrong. Therefore, (D) is correct.

Honestly, I don’t love (D) when I first look at it either. But it is true that Henyey’s work is the first to SUGGEST that the geologists’ assumption may be incorrect. And this question is an excellent example of where finding four wrong answers, rather than one right answer, can be immensely beneficial. It may be hard to see why (D) is correct. But it’s easy to see why the other four answers are incorrect, making (D) the least wrong answer. And on that basis, we can choose (D).

I hope that helps!

EducationAisle GMATNinja please could you help me with Q3. A and D

When we read "but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of friction-generated heat could be explained" we can infer that there was no heat generated through the friction and thus we can get (D)


But can't we also get

I am not quite sure of the structure of this RC. GMATNinja you mentioned that "Byerlee" supports "Henyey". I understand that prior Geologists had an hypothesis that later "Henyey" proved wrong. But how does "Byerlee" add support to "Henyey". Doesn't "Byerlee" rather prove that friction-generated heat CAN be created from the weaker "clay" rocks while "Henyey" on the other hand proves that there was no friction-generated heat

Question 3

As we said in our previous post, the problem with (A) is that we don’t actually know whether previous measurements of temperature in the San Andreas Fault zone were taken. All we know is that geologists expected to find elevated temperatures, but their expectations could have been based on pure theory and not past measurements. So, we don’t know if any past measurements actually contained errors.

As far as the relationship between Henyey and Byerlee, Henyey’s work suggests that the giant rock plates do not produce heat by friction at the San Andreas Fault. Byerlee’s work confirms that even weaker materials would produce more heat than is found at the San Andreas Fault. So, Byerlee confirms Henyey’s suggestion that heat is not being produced by friction at the San Andreas Fault.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma
please can u explain question 1

Hi saby1410,

Let us know if you find the below explanation helpful.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/prior-to-1965-geologists-assumed-that-the-two-giant-rock-plates-meetin-32112.html#p1302144


Thanks.