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.
Sep 0710:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
17 Sep 2024, 09:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
To solve this question, we need to weaken the claim that earthlike worlds form a low percentage of the planets orbiting stars other than the sun. This means finding an answer choice that suggests the evidence is incomplete, misleading, or that the earthlike planets might be more common than the observations suggest. Let's evaluate each option:
A. There are millions of planets orbiting stars around which astronomers have not attempted to detect planets.
This option suggests that the sample of planets astronomers have observed is incomplete because there are many planets they haven’t tried to detect. If astronomers haven't looked at many planets, it's possible that earthlike planets exist around those other stars. This weakens the argument by showing that the observations may not be representative of the entire galaxy.
B. The best current astronomical theories predict that almost all planets around other stars are probably hundreds of times larger than the earth.
This option supports the claim that earthlike planets are rare by asserting that theoretical models predict most planets are much larger than Earth. This would strengthen the argument rather than weaken it.
C. A planet orbiting a star similar to the sun would be more likely to be earthlike in size than would a planet orbiting a much smaller star.
This suggests that earthlike planets might be more common around stars similar to the sun. However, the stimulus mentions that most of the observed stars are smaller than the sun, so this option doesn’t necessarily weaken the claim about the percentage of earthlike planets in general, though it hints that there might be more around sun-like stars.
D. The smaller a planet is relative to the star it orbits, the more difficult it is for astronomers to detect.
This option weakens the claim by introducing the idea that small, earthlike planets may simply be harder to detect. If detection is biased towards larger planets, the observed percentage of earthlike planets could be artificially low. This is a strong weakening statement.
E. The observations would have detected any small, earthlike worlds orbiting the stars around which larger planets have been detected.
This option implies that the current observations are comprehensive and that no small, earthlike planets exist around stars where larger planets have been detected. This would support the argument that earthlike planets are indeed rare, so it strengthens the claim instead of weakening it.
Correct Answer: D
This option best weakens the argument by suggesting that earthlike planets are harder to detect, and thus their apparent rarity might be a result of detection limitations rather than their actual scarcity.
A. There are millions of planets orbiting stars around which astronomers have not attempted to detect planets.
This option suggests that the sample of planets astronomers have observed is incomplete because there are many planets they haven’t tried to detect. If astronomers haven't looked at many planets, it's possible that earthlike planets exist around those other stars. This weakens the argument by showing that the observations may not be representative of the entire galaxy.
B. The best current astronomical theories predict that almost all planets around other stars are probably hundreds of times larger than the earth.
This option supports the claim that earthlike planets are rare by asserting that theoretical models predict most planets are much larger than Earth. This would strengthen the argument rather than weaken it.
C. A planet orbiting a star similar to the sun would be more likely to be earthlike in size than would a planet orbiting a much smaller star.
This suggests that earthlike planets might be more common around stars similar to the sun. However, the stimulus mentions that most of the observed stars are smaller than the sun, so this option doesn’t necessarily weaken the claim about the percentage of earthlike planets in general, though it hints that there might be more around sun-like stars.
D. The smaller a planet is relative to the star it orbits, the more difficult it is for astronomers to detect.
This option weakens the claim by introducing the idea that small, earthlike planets may simply be harder to detect. If detection is biased towards larger planets, the observed percentage of earthlike planets could be artificially low. This is a strong weakening statement.
E. The observations would have detected any small, earthlike worlds orbiting the stars around which larger planets have been detected.
This option implies that the current observations are comprehensive and that no small, earthlike planets exist around stars where larger planets have been detected. This would support the argument that earthlike planets are indeed rare, so it strengthens the claim instead of weakening it.
Correct Answer: D
This option best weakens the argument by suggesting that earthlike planets are harder to detect, and thus their apparent rarity might be a result of detection limitations rather than their actual scarcity.
12 Oct 2024, 07:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
The question is about weakening the JUSTIFICATION provided for the conclusion and not the conclusion itself. So option A will not work since even though it weakens the conclusion made, it does not attack the justification provided and hence cannot be the correct choice
Meanwhile, option D attacks the justification and weakens the conclusion
Understanding the Question stem is key here.
Meanwhile, option D attacks the justification and weakens the conclusion
Understanding the Question stem is key here.
14 Oct 2024, 08:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can someone tell me why C is not the right answer? It says:
C. A planet orbiting a star similar to the sun would be more likely to be earthlike in size than would a planet orbiting a much smaller star.
Since astronomers have only been looking at planets that orbit stars much smaller than the sun, C is exposing a weakness in "data collection", by mentioning that astronomers are looking at the wrong data; they should be looking at a star "similar to the sun" and not "much smaller than the sun". That way, they would be able to find planets more likely to be earthlike in size.
Of course we don't know "how many" such stars exist, but the point is that C does prove a flaw in data collection; isn't that the point of this question?
AjiteshArun KarishmaB GMATNinja GMATGuruNY
C. A planet orbiting a star similar to the sun would be more likely to be earthlike in size than would a planet orbiting a much smaller star.
Since astronomers have only been looking at planets that orbit stars much smaller than the sun, C is exposing a weakness in "data collection", by mentioning that astronomers are looking at the wrong data; they should be looking at a star "similar to the sun" and not "much smaller than the sun". That way, they would be able to find planets more likely to be earthlike in size.
Of course we don't know "how many" such stars exist, but the point is that C does prove a flaw in data collection; isn't that the point of this question?
AjiteshArun KarishmaB GMATNinja GMATGuruNY
