ahujaparth10 wrote:
vksunder wrote:
Robot satellites relay important communications and identify weather patterns. Because the satellites can be repaired only in orbit, astronauts are needed to repair them. Without repairs, the satellites would eventually malfunction. Therefore, space flights carrying astronauts must continue.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) Satellites falling from orbit because of malfunctions burn up in the atmosphere.
(B) Although satellites are indispensable in the identification of weather patterns, weather forecasters also make some use of computer projections to identify weather patterns.
(C) The government, responding to public pressure, has decided to cut the budget for space flights and put more money into social welfare programs.
(D) Repair of satellites requires heavy equipment, which adds to the amount of fuel needed to lift a spaceship carrying astronauts into orbit.
(E) Technical obsolescence of robot satellites makes repairing them more costly and less practical than sending new, improved satellites into orbit.
A little help here please. I rejected (E) as "Repairs needed in satellites due to "Technical Obsolescence" is nowhere mentioned in the paragraph. The para just states that without repairs, the satellites may malfunction. In this case, isn't (E) just weakening a specific case where repairs are required due to Technical Obsolescence? Repairs could be needed due to a a part not working, or some glitch and that wouldn't necessarily be more costly than sending new satellites?GMATNinjaTo answer your question about: there is nothing in the passage or in (E) to say that the satellites would need to be repaired
because of technical obsolescence. (E) is trying to tell us that because of the technical obsolescence -- the current state -- of these satellites
any repairs will be more costly and less practical than just sending new satellites into orbit.
Technical obsolescence means these satellites are now
out of date. There are other, newer, more capable satellites that are available and ready to be used.
Think about trying to repair an old car after something goes wrong in the engine -- it can be a very expensive process as the parts are hard to find or the old design makes repairs difficult. It might be cheaper and easier, in the long run, to buy a newer, more efficient car with lots of new features, rather than repairing the old one. The same thinking is being applied to the satellites in this question.
This gives us enough justification to say space flights carrying astronauts
might not actually be needed. Since this weakens the argument -- and the other four answer choices do not -- (E) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!