Last visit was: 17 Jul 2024, 06:33 It is currently 17 Jul 2024, 06:33
Toolkit
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 106
Own Kudos [?]: 258 [21]
Given Kudos: 15
Location: Prague
Concentration: Finance
Schools:University of Economics Prague
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6984
Own Kudos [?]: 64518 [8]
Given Kudos: 1822
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Status:Happy to join ROSS!
Posts: 234
Own Kudos [?]: 283 [0]
Given Kudos: 48
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Ross '14 (M\$)
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 163
Own Kudos [?]: 380 [0]
Given Kudos: 118
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
Hello Vorskl,

This is my take on 18.

As per the passage para 3 - "Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere". So the author does not say that Hot spots should not be counted, rather it should not be counted by itself, we should also consider other cold spots. For this reason we can cancel 18 E.

As per the passage para 3 - "Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth.". So this supports 18 D.
Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
I don't understand the logic in the 17th OA. The author states that there is no firm evidence to prove that there is a greenhouse effect, doesn't he?
I picked D for 17th.
So can anyone help me solve this particular question?
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
1
Kudos
MitSuRuGi wrote:
I don't understand the logic in the 17th OA. The author states that there is no firm evidence to prove that there is a greenhouse effect, doesn't he?
I picked D for 17th.
So can anyone help me solve this particular question?

I think the author already mention "Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?"

The author is not determining.
Intern
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]
Given Kudos: 28
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Could someone give an explanation for Question 4 -
Primarily the answer choice difference between C and D.

Thanks
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2020
Posts: 134
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14066
Own Kudos [?]: 36555 [2]
Given Kudos: 5830
GPA: 3.62
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
2
Kudos
richirish wrote:

The difficulty levels of the questions are as follow:

Question 1: 700
Question 2: 700
Question 3: 650
Question 4: 700

Overall: 700

Thank you
Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2020
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 163
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
I would appreciate some help with question 1! I was stuck between B&D. If I were to exclude the second paragraph it would be straightforward to me that the answer is B. However, since the author focuses so much on the views of scientist in paragraph 2 and finally in paragraph 3 again mentions science magazine, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal in which scientist publish their work, I was led to believe that the focus on scientists and their work would make D correct. GMATNinja would you mind helping out?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 770
Own Kudos [?]: 695 [0]
Given Kudos: 1316
Location: India
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
GMATE1 wrote:
I would appreciate some help with question 1! I was stuck between B&D. If I were to exclude the second paragraph it would be straightforward to me that the answer is B. However, since the author focuses so much on the views of scientist in paragraph 2 and finally in paragraph 3 again mentions science magazine, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal in which scientist publish their work, I was led to believe that the focus on scientists and their work would make D correct. GMATNinja would you mind helping out?

Hi GMATE1,

Quote:
(B) Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it is worsened by human actions
(D) Determining if most scientists would be inclined to give a positive answer to the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actions

I would say D is incorrect because the passage is not about whether scientists are inclined or not to prove whether there is a greenhouse effect and if it is worsened by human actions. It more about about whether there is a greenhouse effect and if its worsened by human actions, which is exactly what option B points out.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.
Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2021
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
please explain Q4 stuck between C AND D
Intern
Joined: 29 May 2021
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 59
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35 (Online)
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
Hi,

Can anyone explain Q2. I was stuck between D and E.

Thank you:-)
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14066
Own Kudos [?]: 36555 [1]
Given Kudos: 5830
GPA: 3.62
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
purvikhandelwal1 wrote:
Hi,

Can anyone explain Q2. I was stuck between D and E.

Thank you:-)

Why E is incorrect

According to paragraph 3 "Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere". So the author does not say that Hot spots should not be counted, rather it should not be counted by itself, we should also consider other cold spots. For this reason, we can cancel E.

Why D is correct

According to paragraph 3 "Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth.". So this supports D.

Current Student
Joined: 23 Oct 2019
Posts: 48
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 3516
Location: Thailand
Schools: Ross '24 (M)
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
Could you please explain question 1 and 4 in details?
For question 1, I was hesitating between choice A and B.
For question 4, I was hanging around choice C and D, but I ended up choosing C as it seems to connect a synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades with the diachronic history of ice age cycles. Whereas, choice D only talks about a synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades.

GMATNinja KarishmaB egmat mikemcgarry
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6984
Own Kudos [?]: 64518 [2]
Given Kudos: 1822
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
2
Kudos

Question 1

krittapat wrote:
Could you please explain question 1 and 4 in details?
For question 1, I was hesitating between choice A and B.
For question 4, I was hanging around choice C and D, but I ended up choosing C as it seems to connect a synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades with the diachronic history of ice age cycles. Whereas, choice D only talks about a synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades.

GMATNinja KarishmaB egmat mikemcgarry

To answer broad questions like question 1, start by breaking down the passage as a whole. Why did the author write each paragraph?

Paragraph 1: the author poses a question.

• What and how strong is the evidence for the greenhouse effect, and for human involvement in the greenhouse effect?

Paragraph 2: the author introduces the opinion of the scientific community

• The community's opinion is "somewhat ambiguous," but consensus is building that there is a greenhouse effect.

Paragraph 3: The author evaluates the evidence for the greenhouse effect.

From the above, we can see that the author is primarily interested in discussing the strength of the evidence for the greenhouse effect/human involvement in the greenhouse effect.

With that in mind, here's (A):
Quote:
(A) Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensus

Consensus is mentioned in the second paragraph, but only to explain the scientific community's opinion on the greenhouse effect. So (A) really doesn't capture the author's primary interest -- instead, it is just a small point that the author considers before moving onto the stuff that he/she finds more interesting.

(A) is out.

Quote:
(B) Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it is worsened by human actions

This aligns nicely with our passage breakdown. The author evaluates the evidence pertaining to the greenhouse effect/human involvement in the greenhouse effect.

(B) is the correct answer to question 1.

Question 4

Question 4 asks us to strengthen the claim that "a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years."

Here's (C):
Quote:
(C) Compared synchronic whole earth measurements with diachronic whole earth measurements.

The main issue with (C) is that the author has already made the most relevant comparison between synchronic and diachronic measurements -- diachronic measurements would be much, much longer than synchronic ones. So, we can't really say that making this comparison would add much to the existing argument.

Compare that to (D):
Quote:
(D) Proved that the mean number of years required to detect significant changes in weather patterns is greater than thirty.

How do we know that a 30 year measurement doesn't give us clear evidence about the green house effect? The author doesn't explicitly give us that info in the passage. (D) fills in that gap -- if the author proved that you need more than 30 years to detect significant changes in weather patterns, then the point that these measurements are a mere "blip" in the big picture would be stronger.

(D) is the correct answer to question 4.

I hope that helps!
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Posts: 129
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [0]
Given Kudos: 1248
Location: Taiwan
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
craky wrote:
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?

Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.

Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. Hot spots, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Niño cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin"?

Hi avigutman GMATNinja IanStewart

I have some questions about three sentences in this passage and about the third question that no previous posts addressed. So I decided to write my own post and hope that you could share some thoughts when you have time.

1. How should we read this sentence? Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like?

I know that this is in the RC section and we do not need to examine the sentences by the same standards in the SC section, but I am really confused about this sentence and thus have trouble with the 3rd question.

even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted,

It is clear that the that clause's subject is "the earth," with the first verb "is heating" and the second verb "has," but I am unsure about "from this strange weather effects can be predicted." Does it have its own subject? Does it mean "effects could be predicted from the strange weather (heating up and increasing ozone hole)" ? If yes, why doesn't it just say "the strange weather's effects can be predicted?"

After practicing so many SC questions that require that parallel verbs be connected by "and," I think it is weird if the subject "the earth" has two verbs without proper connection--the sentence should be revised into "the earth is now heating up and has an ever increasing ozone hole," should not it? It is not my intention to criticize the writing in PC passages, but this sentence's structure does make me wonder whether the subject "the earth" is related to the following parts.

Or, does the verb "can be predicted" go with the subject "the earth" as the third verb? But, "the earth can be predicted from this strange weather effects" does not really make sense, not to mention that the singular "this" does not agree with the plural "effects".

2. How is the option (A) correct?
Quote:
3. It can be inferred from the passage that

(A) We cannot be certain that strange weather effects are a result of the earth heating up and an ever-increasing ozone hole.
(B) The greenhouse effect is the most widely discussed topic in the scientifically informed circles.
(C) If the temperature of the oceans has ceased to rise at an ever-increasing rate, then the rate of global warming has increased.
(D) Strange weather effects have been shown to be due to the diachronic effects of hydrocarbon burning and not to increases in CFC.
(E) Strange weather effects are caused by the increase use of CFCs, CO2, and similar gasses.

I can see why the other options are incorrect, but I cannot articulate why (A) is correct, because I cannot really understand what "the strange weather effects" refer to. I feel that the "strange weather" refers to the heating up and increasing hole, so I think that there will be no such effects without the two phenomena. Maybe the use of the word "result" is not ideal, but it does not seem very wrong to me. On the other hand, I would definitely pick (A) if it said "we cannot be certain that the strange weather effects are a result of human behavior."

3. How much can we tolerate grammatical issues?

Though I am not fully certain, I feel that the following two sentences both contain some errors that would not be ignored if the sentences appeared in the SC section. I am aware that this is in the RC section, but these errors (or not errors, if I have mistaken them) have made me unable to grasp the author's real meaning. I do think that is an important ability for shorter, tighter and more difficult passages.

a. In the end of the first paragraph:
But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?

->What is being pushed here? the evidence? or the most people in the preceding sentence?

b. In the end of the second paragraph:
Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.
->This sentence is in the conditional tone. "Were" should go with "would" to indicate that the author thinks it is an unlikely case. But, "would" is missed in this sentence. Does the author still think that this is an unlikely case?

Sorry experts that my questions are a bit long.
Usually RC passages do not confuse me so much and I avoid asking grammar-related questions in the RC section. But since I have difficulty understanding the option (A) in the 3rd question, I hope to enhance my reading ability. Thank you for helping me learn.
Intern
Joined: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 130
Location: Morocco
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:

Question 1

krittapat wrote:
Could you please explain question 1 and 4 in details?
For question 1, I was hesitating between choice A and B.
For question 4, I was hanging around choice C and D, but I ended up choosing C as it seems to connect a synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades with the diachronic history of ice age cycles. Whereas, choice D only talks about a synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades.

GMATNinja KarishmaB egmat mikemcgarry

To answer broad questions like question 1, start by breaking down the passage as a whole. Why did the author write each paragraph?

Paragraph 1: the author poses a question.

• What and how strong is the evidence for the greenhouse effect, and for human involvement in the greenhouse effect?

Paragraph 2: the author introduces the opinion of the scientific community

• The community's opinion is "somewhat ambiguous," but consensus is building that there is a greenhouse effect.

Paragraph 3: The author evaluates the evidence for the greenhouse effect.

From the above, we can see that the author is primarily interested in discussing the strength of the evidence for the greenhouse effect/human involvement in the greenhouse effect.

With that in mind, here's (A):
Quote:
(A) Whether scientific truths are simply a matter of consensus

Consensus is mentioned in the second paragraph, but only to explain the scientific community's opinion on the greenhouse effect. So (A) really doesn't capture the author's primary interest -- instead, it is just a small point that the author considers before moving onto the stuff that he/she finds more interesting.

(A) is out.

Quote:
(B) Determining how well established the greenhouse effect is and to what degree it is worsened by human actions

This aligns nicely with our passage breakdown. The author evaluates the evidence pertaining to the greenhouse effect/human involvement in the greenhouse effect.

(B) is the correct answer to question 1.

Question 4

Question 4 asks us to strengthen the claim that "a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years."

Here's (C):
Quote:
(C) Compared synchronic whole earth measurements with diachronic whole earth measurements.

The main issue with (C) is that the author has already made the most relevant comparison between synchronic and diachronic measurements -- diachronic measurements would be much, much longer than synchronic ones. So, we can't really say that making this comparison would add much to the existing argument.

Compare that to (D):
Quote:
(D) Proved that the mean number of years required to detect significant changes in weather patterns is greater than thirty.

How do we know that a 30 year measurement doesn't give us clear evidence about the green house effect? The author doesn't explicitly give us that info in the passage. (D) fills in that gap -- if the author proved that you need more than 30 years to detect significant changes in weather patterns, then the point that these measurements are a mere "blip" in the big picture would be stronger.

(D) is the correct answer to question 4.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja In question 4, could you please explain how we cannot eliminate D? based on the question we are supposed to show that since synchronic measurements are just a ''Blip" in the diachronic measurements that spread through thousands of years, a wider range is needed to be taken into account to have the bigger picture.
Answer choice D only states that it should be bigger than 30, meaning 31 is okay, so how does 31 years i.e shows the wider range that we need to not have the ''blip''.
Re: Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we de [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14066 posts