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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Updated on: 15 Mar 2023, 06:07
Originally posted by Sajjad1994 on 31 Jul 2019, 12:11.
Last edited by Bunuel on 15 Mar 2023, 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 15 Mar 2023, 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
66% (02:16) correct
34%
(02:28)
wrong
based on 637
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
To the editor: In 1960, an astronomer proposed a mathematical model for determining whether extraterrestrial life exists. It was based on the assumptions that life as we know it could exist only on a planet and that many stars are, like our Sun, orbited by planets. On the basis that there are nine planets in our solar system and one of them has life as we know it, the astronomer predicted that there are as many as one million extraterrestrial civilizations across all solar systems. Yet astronomers to date have not detected even one planet outside our solar system. This indicates that the astronomer's model is wrong, and life as we know it exists only on the planet Earth.
- Clay Moltz
Which one of the following, if accepted by Clay Moltz, would require him to reconsider his conclusion?
(A) Forms of life other than life as we know it exist on other planets.
(B) There are many stars that are not orbited by planets.
(C) Detecting planets outside our solar system requires more sophisticated instruments than are currently available.
(D) The soundness of the conclusion reached by applying a mathematical model depends on the soundness of the assumptions on which the model is based.
(E) Due to sheer distances and expanses of space involved, any extraterrestrial civilization would have great difficulty communicating with ours.
- Clay Moltz
Which one of the following, if accepted by Clay Moltz, would require him to reconsider his conclusion?
(A) Forms of life other than life as we know it exist on other planets.
(B) There are many stars that are not orbited by planets.
(C) Detecting planets outside our solar system requires more sophisticated instruments than are currently available.
(D) The soundness of the conclusion reached by applying a mathematical model depends on the soundness of the assumptions on which the model is based.
(E) Due to sheer distances and expanses of space involved, any extraterrestrial civilization would have great difficulty communicating with ours.
03 Aug 2019, 17:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
SajjadAhmad
Without knowing who Clay is it makes it difficult. If he is responding to the initial astronomer's claim, then yes C makes sense. Just because we haven't found other planets doesn't mean that they do not exist. It's a parallel to the black swan theory. E is tempting, but for all we know aliens have been trying to communicate with us for years, and we just haven't been able to pick up on it. (I don't actually believe this, but for the sake of argument)
26 Aug 2019, 05:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Explanation
The conclusion that we’re directed to make Clay “reconsider” is signaled by the phrase “This indicates that...,” and the gist of it is that it’s a rebuttal: For Clay, life as we know it exists nowhere but on Earth, despite the astronomer’s prediction that lots of life is to be found on planets Out There.
Notice that Clay spends most of his letter describing the astronomer’s thought process. He provides only one piece of counter evidence, and it’s this: No single planet outside of our own solar system has been found. On that absence of evidence hangs Clay’s stubborn, categorical insistence that We Are Alone. Well, he’d have to back off if, as (C) states, the reason that no other planets have been found is not that they don’t exist, but that we don’t yet have the means to find them. If (C) is true, then until such time as adequate means of detection is developed, the astronomer’s prediction is unscathed and will have to stand.
(A) sounds like a capitulation on Clay’s part, but it’s really outside the scope. The point at issue between Clay and the astronomer is whether life as we know it exists elsewhere than Earth. Clay could concede the existence of (A)’s weird life forms and still argue that the astronomer is wrong.
(B) Planets and a star like the Sun are, to the astronomer, necessary for life as we know it to exist. That some stars may be planet-less has no effect on either the astronomer’s logic or Clay’s.
(D) is something that Clay already accepts as true—his whole rebuttal hinges on his belief that it’s the astronomer’s faulty assumption (about other planets) that renders the prediction worthless. Since (D) is in synch with Clay’s reasoning, it cannot serve to make him reconsider that reasoning.
(E) is irrelevant. So communication between us and E.T. would be tough, eh. Would it be impossible? What has this to do with whether life as we know it does or does not exist?
Answer: C
The conclusion that we’re directed to make Clay “reconsider” is signaled by the phrase “This indicates that...,” and the gist of it is that it’s a rebuttal: For Clay, life as we know it exists nowhere but on Earth, despite the astronomer’s prediction that lots of life is to be found on planets Out There.
Notice that Clay spends most of his letter describing the astronomer’s thought process. He provides only one piece of counter evidence, and it’s this: No single planet outside of our own solar system has been found. On that absence of evidence hangs Clay’s stubborn, categorical insistence that We Are Alone. Well, he’d have to back off if, as (C) states, the reason that no other planets have been found is not that they don’t exist, but that we don’t yet have the means to find them. If (C) is true, then until such time as adequate means of detection is developed, the astronomer’s prediction is unscathed and will have to stand.
(A) sounds like a capitulation on Clay’s part, but it’s really outside the scope. The point at issue between Clay and the astronomer is whether life as we know it exists elsewhere than Earth. Clay could concede the existence of (A)’s weird life forms and still argue that the astronomer is wrong.
(B) Planets and a star like the Sun are, to the astronomer, necessary for life as we know it to exist. That some stars may be planet-less has no effect on either the astronomer’s logic or Clay’s.
(D) is something that Clay already accepts as true—his whole rebuttal hinges on his belief that it’s the astronomer’s faulty assumption (about other planets) that renders the prediction worthless. Since (D) is in synch with Clay’s reasoning, it cannot serve to make him reconsider that reasoning.
(E) is irrelevant. So communication between us and E.T. would be tough, eh. Would it be impossible? What has this to do with whether life as we know it does or does not exist?
Answer: C
Hope it helps
