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.
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
A powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
30 Aug 2018, 22:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
(5) 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,
(10) 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
(15) 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
(20) 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
(25) 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
(30) 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 22
(35) years 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
(40) 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
(45) 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,
(50) from 44 to 332 years.
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.
the short term by identifying precursory phenomena
(those that occur a few days before large quakes
but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes
(5) 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,
(10) 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
(15) 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
(20) 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
(25) 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
(30) 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 22
(35) years 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
(40) 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
(45) 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,
(50) from 44 to 332 years.
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.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
30 Aug 2018, 22:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think C is the best answer. The whole passage seems to talk about how we(scientists) don’t know anything significant about earthquakes to be able to predict earthquakes
Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum
Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum
