Some ores deep in the Earth are rich in iron particles. These particle

Question

Some ores deep in the Earth are rich in iron particles. These particles are too vulnerable to the corrosive effects of oxygen to have accumulated under the oxygenated atmosphere of today. Therefore, when the ores were deposited millions of years ago, the atmosphere must have contained less oxygen than it does today.

The argument above requires which of the following assumptions?

A. The iron particles were exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited.
B. Ores were more vulnerable to the effects of corrosion in the past than they are today.
C. Ores are deposited at various depths in the Earth.
D. The oxygen level of the atmosphere remained constant during the period when the ores rich in iron particles were deposited.
E. Ores near the surface of the Earth are less rich in iron particles than are ores deep in the Earth.

CR16838

Kritisood · Answer

IMO, A. negating this would break the argument. "the iron particles were NOT exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited." breaks the conclusion of the argument i.e "therefore when the ores were deposited millions of years ago, the atmosphere must have contained less oxygen than it does today."

Batman117 · Answer

A.
Iron particles are vulnerable to oxygen but what if they weren't exposed when ores deposited.
We assume that along with core,iron particles were aslo exposed to oxygen.

Posted from my mobile device

chiragthukral · Answer

A.The iron particles were exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited. -  This clearly supports the conclusion that the atmosphere contained less oxygen in the past than today.  
 On negating Option A i.e The iron particles were NOT exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited, the conclusion will fall 
 
B. Ores were more vulnerable to the effects of corrosion in the past than they are today. -  The argument is about iron particles exposure to oxygen and not ores exposure. 
C. Ores are deposited at various depths in the Earth. -  Irrelevant. 
D. The oxygen level of the atmosphere remained constant during the period when the ores rich in iron particles were deposited. -  Irrelevant. 
E. Ores near the surface of the Earth are less rich in iron particles than are ores deep in the Earth.-  Irrelevant

gmatimothy · Answer

priyadabas01 · Answer

Conclusion: when the ores were deposited millions of years ago, the atmosphere must have contained less oxygen than it does today.

Premise: These particles are too vulnerable to the corrosive effects of oxygen to have accumulated under the oxygenated atmosphere of today.

Assumption + Premise = conclusion

A. The iron particles were exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited.
MUST BE TRUE, otherwise without contact argument breaks

B. Ores were more vulnerable to the effects of corrosion in the past than they are today.
Weak - breaks the argument

C. Ores are deposited at various depths in the Earth.
Let's think.. even if ores are deposited at 1 km & 2 km, how does that help? Irrelevant. At worst, weakening because ores are near surface and below so have deposited given the atm level in present & in past. no difference.

D. The oxygen level of the atmosphere remained constant during the period when the ores rich in iron particles were deposited.
weakening - goes against conclusion

E. Ores near the surface of the Earth are less rich in iron particles than are ores deep in the Earth.
does strengthen the argument, but even if ores near surface and ores in depth have the same iron content, the oxygen level could have been varied in the past. Moreover, we don't know about quality of "iron particles" that have accumulated, Does not need this to be true

BottomJee · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Situation-  Iron particles are found in ores (solid materials) that can be mined from deep in the Earth. These ores were deposited millions of years ago. The iron particles are vulnerable to corrosion if exposed to oxygen and could not have accumulated under an atmosphere as oxygenated as it is today. The conclusion is drawn that millions of years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere contained less oxygen than it does today.

Reasoning-   What must be assumed for the argument to succeed?  The argument must assume that at some point during the accumulation process, the iron particles were exposed to Earth’s atmosphere. If they were not, then their vulnerability to atmospheric oxygen's corrosive effects would not have prevented them from accumulating, so the inference that the atmosphere contained less oxygen then than it does today would fail.

Correct.  As explained, this must be assumed for the inference to the argument’s conclusion to succeed. 
 The argument does not depend on any assumption about the extent to which ores (as opposed to iron particles) were vulnerable to the effects of corrosion. 
 The argument depends on the assumption that the ores containing iron particles were deposited close enough to Earth’s surface for the iron particles to be exposed to the atmosphere. It does not depend on a general assumption of the kind in this answer choice. 
 As explained, the conclusion of the argument is that the oxygen level of the atmosphere was lower when the ores were deposited than it is today. But the argument need not assume that the oxygen level remained constant, only that it was generally low enough to allow the iron particles to accumulate. 
 This information provides some support for the premise that iron particles are vulnerable to corrosion if exposed to oxygen and is consistent with the argument. But it does not have to be assumed for the argument to succeed; the argument is consistent both with the affirmation of this statement and with its denial.

The correct answer is A.

AshishDevliyal · Answer

It is one of the hardest question

Let's break down the argument and the answer choices more simply:

Argument:
Fact: Some deep-earth ores are rich in iron particles.
Problem: Iron particles are easily corroded by oxygen.
Conclusion: The atmosphere must have had less oxygen when these ores were deposited millions of years ago.
What does the argument assume?
For the argument to make sense, it assumes something that must be true for the conclusion to follow logically.

Answer Choices:
The iron particles were exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited.

If iron particles were not exposed to the atmosphere, the oxygen level wouldn’t matter. Therefore, the argument assumes they were exposed.
Ores were more vulnerable to the effects of corrosion in the past than they are today.

This does not relate to the oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
Ores are deposited at various depths in the Earth.

This is a general fact and doesn’t impact the argument about oxygen levels.
The oxygen level of the atmosphere remained constant during the period when the ores rich in iron particles were deposited.

If the oxygen level stayed constant, it would not support the argument that there was less oxygen in the past.
Ores near the surface of the Earth are less rich in iron particles than are ores deep in the Earth.

This doesn’t help explain the oxygen levels in the past.
Simplified Conclusion:
The correct choice is:

The iron particles were exposed to the atmosphere during the period when the ores were deposited.

This assumption is necessary because if the iron particles were not exposed to the atmosphere, the current oxygen levels wouldn't matter, making the argument about less oxygen in the past irrelevant.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Some ores deep in the Earth are rich in iron particles. These particle

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Some ores deep in the Earth are rich in iron particles. These particle

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards