If early twentieth-century geologists and geo- physicists had heeded

Question

If early twentieth-century geologists and geo-physicists had heeded the fundamental axiom of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. "Everything flows." the sterile and sometimes bitter controversy that divided them in the first half of the twentieth century might have been avoided.

At the time, some geologists argued that the history of past climates, reconstructed from examination of rock strata, and the distribution of past fauna, documented through analysis of the fossil record, were inexplicable if the continents had never moved. Noting that some of the continents could be fitted together reasonably well as a kind of crustal jigsaw puzzle, they theorized that during some part of the Earth's history, the continents must have moved.

Geophysicists, looking at different types of data, reached a very different conclusion. When a major earthquake occurred, they noted, the Earth behaved like a gigantic bell struck by a hammer. it rang, and the reverberations echoed around the Earth for several hours thereafter. They inferred from this that the outer part of the Earth was strong and rigid. This inference seemed to be confirmed by the evidence of mountains. Rocks at the base of mountains like ten-kilometer-high Everest had to be able to withstand enormous stress or they would crack and the mountains collapse. Because the height of any structure is limited by the strength of its supporting materials, the stability of mountains seemed to corroborate the geophysicists' conclusion: the Earth was simply too strong for the continents to move.

There followed a classic confrontation, pitting "movement" against "rigidity," which in retrospect need never have occurred. The  "strength paradox"  had been familiar to generations of geologists from the study of rock deformations in mountain belts, where it had been observed that some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even viscous. But both geologists and geophysicists failed to connect this evidence with a phenomenon they knew in the context of practical problems of structural engineering "creep”. Creep is observed in materials that are subjected to relatively low stresses for very long periods of time; the materials deform continuously, but very slowly, like fluids with an extremely high viscosity. The process operates most rapidly in materials near their melting point.
 
Thus, before talking of the -strength" of rocks, both groups of scientists should have known something of the temperature of the rocks they were studying and should have specified the time scale under consideration. Rocks at the Earth's surface are between 600' and 1,000' C below their melting temperatures and thus creep so slowly that even on geological time scales of millions of years, they may be regarded as brittle and strong solids. Within the Earth, however, temperature increases relatively rapidly with depth and, below a few hundred kilometers, creep occurs so readily that on time scales of more than a few million years, rocks underneath the Earth's crust must be considered as fluids even though they are perfectly normal crystalline solids.    1 
 1. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

(A) presenting new evidence
(B) correcting an oversimplification
(C) analyzing the reasons for a dispute
(D) reinterpreting a theory
(E) resolving a dispute between past and present views

2 
 2. It can be inferred from the passage that all of the following are true of the phenomenon of creep EXCEPT:

(A) The effects of creep on normal crystalline solids are always imperceptible.
(B) The rate of creep is increased by raising the temperature of a solid.
(C) Creep occurs even in relatively large geological structures.
(D) Creep operates most rapidly on rocks near their melting point.
(E) Creep occurs both on and below the Earth's surface.

3 
 3. The passage suggests that the author considers the disagreement between early twentieth-century geologists and geophysicists to have been

(A) confusing 
(B) inevitable 
(C) surprising and inexplicable
(D) hostile but ultimately useful 
(E) needless and unproductive

4 
 4. According to the passage, the theoretical position of early twentieth-century geologist was based on which of the following?

I. The shapes of the Earth's continents 
II. The evidence of ductility in rocks 
III. The fossil record

(A) I only 
(B) III only 
(C) I and II only 
(D) I and III only 
(E) I, II, and III

5 
 5. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following statements best expresses the "strength paradox" ( Highlighted )?

(A) Some rocks arc rigid and brittle, whereas others are fluid and ductile depending on their chemical composition. 
(B) Rocks at the base of mountains may be very rigid while rocks higher up the mountain are more fluid. 
(C) The rigidity of the same rock can vary widely depending on the physical stresses acting on it. 
(D) Rocks in scene locations on the Earth's surface are far more rigid and brittle than are other rocks subjected to comparable stress. 
(E) The strength of rocks in mountain belts varies according to the rate of creep in a particular location.

6 
 6. According to the author of the passage, geologists and geophysicists could have resolved their theoretical argument if they had

(A) more carefully reviewed the fossa evidence 
(B) closely examined the physical appearance of the Earth's surface rock 
(C) applied their knowledge of the effects of stress to the geological evidence 
(D) known about the phenomenon of creep 
(E) understood more completely the effects of phenomena such as earthquakes

7 
 7. The author suggests that the major reason for the disagreement between early twentieth-century geologists and geophysicists was that each group

(A) reached conflicting conclusions from separate analyses of the fossil record 
(B) interpreted the evidence of rock deformations differently 
(C) examined data on different kinds of phenomena 
(D) based their respective theories on conflicting estimates of the Earth's age 
(E) made different though equally inaccurate assumptions about the Earth's history

8 
 8. Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage?

(A) A particular view of a scientific issue is outlined and arguments against that view are stated. 
(B) A theory is presented, relevant new evidence is discussed, and the theory is reinterpreted. 
(C) A scientific dispute is examined and possible resolutions of the dispute are outlined 
(D) A hypothesis is stated and new evidence proving its validity is presented. 
(E) A scientific dispute is summarized and reasons for its occurrence are offered.

9 
 9. Which of the following statements, if true, is most compatible with the principle underlying the geophysicists' citation of Mt. Everest as evidence for their theories?

(A) A one-hundred-story building must have a much stronger base than is necessary for a twenty-story building of similar materials. 
(B) A thin external material like glass makes a skyscraper less vulnerable to stress from wind than does a thick material like brick. 
(C) The girders supporting the ceilings and floors on higher levels of a multistory building must be stronger than those supporting ceilings and floors on lower levels. 
(D) Multistory buildings in earthquake zones must obey height restrictions because of the probability of seismic stress. 
(E) Buildings with foundations composed of relatively rigid materials art less subject to creep.

Hoozan · Accepted Answer

The Passage

P1: The author introduces the topic - a debate between geologists and geo-physicist

P2: Viewpoint of geologists - Continets must have moved in the past

P3: Viewpoint of geophysicists - The Earth is too strong for continents to have been moved

P4: Viewpoint of the author - Both sides did not consider a concept they knew: "creep". Had they thought about this concept, this futile debate wouldn't have happened

P5: Continuation of author's viewpoint. Some details of creep and Earth's crust.

So what's the passage about? In my opinion, the author is discussing a debate (the viewpoints of two schools of thought) that he believes would not have occurred had a particular concept been considered in the first place.

Questions:

1. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

(A) presenting new evidence -  NO 
(B) correcting an oversimplification -  NO 
(C) analyzing the reasons for a dispute -  HOLD 
(D) reinterpreting a theory -  NO 
(E) resolving a dispute between past and present views -  NO

Choice (C) is close enough to what we thought. Indeed the author has mentioned the details of two schools of thought and by analyzing the reasons for a dispute he goes ahead and presents his own views in P4 and P5

Answer:  (C)

2. It can be inferred from the passage that all of the following are true of the phenomenon of creep EXCEPT:

(A) The effects of creep on normal crystalline solids are always imperceptible. - I don't know what "imperceptible" means so I will hold onto this choice and move to the rest.

(B) The rate of creep is increased by raising the temperature of a solid - Given " Rocks at the Earth's surface are between 600' and 1,000' C below their melting temperatures and thus creep so slowly " and " Within the Earth, however, temperature increases relatively rapidly with depth and, below a few hundred kilometers, creep occurs so readily...

(C) Creep occurs even in relatively large geological structures. - Given. If you read P4 and P5 you will see that the author agrees that the continents move. Why? Because of "creep". Now continents definitely fit under "large geological structures"

(D) Creep operates most rapidly on rocks near their melting point. - Given " The process operates most rapidly in materials near their melting point "

(E) Creep occurs both on and below the Earth's surface. Given " Rocks at the Earth's surface are between 600' and 1,000' C below their melting temperatures and thus creep so slowly that even on geological time scales of millions of years, they may be regarded as brittle and strong solids. Within the Earth, however, temperature increases "

So through POE, we can arrive at (A). But let's analyze (A) to be sure. Now as I mentioned I have no idea what "imperceptible" means BUT it seems to be some negative word. So I guess (A) says that "creep" does not affect normal crystalline solids. Let's go back and re-read the last two sentences of P5 that talks about "crystalline solids"

The  bold part  shows that even normal crystalline solids are affected by creep and hence act like fluids. Hence (A) is definitely untrue.

Answer:  (A)

PS. Sometimes I have no idea about the meaning of the given word. In such a situation the best bet is to (i) Try and apply POE + (ii) guess the meaning to reconfirm your POE.

3. The passage suggests that the author considers the disagreement between early twentieth-century geologists and geophysicists to have been

(A) confusing -  NO 
(B) inevitable -  NO 
(C) surprising and inexplicable -  NO 
(D) hostile but ultimately useful -  Hold  
(E) needless and unproductive -  Hold

Reading the above in P1 I feel (E) fits BUT the words "sterile" and "bitter controversy" make me think if (D) the word "hostile" fits? However, I am not sure of " ultimately useful" So I am a bit skeptical of (D)

Reading the above  bold face  reconfirms that (E) is the answer.

Answer:  (E)

4. According to the passage, the theoretical position of early twentieth-century geologists was based on which of the following?

P2 talks about "geologists" and their theoretical position. So we can re-read P2 and see that:

I. The shapes of the Earth's continents - P2 - so  yes 
II. The evidence of ductility in rocks - P4 - so  no 
III. The fossil record - P2 - so  yes

Answer:  (D)

5. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following statements best expresses the "strength paradox" (Highlighted)?

To answer this question, it would be best to go back and re-read P4 and get a solid grip on "Strength paradox"

- The "strength paradox" had been familiar to generations of geologists from the study of rock deformations in mountain belts
- From this study, they observed that some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even vicious. (I have no idea what the meaning of these words are but they appear to be something negative)
- Geologists and geophysicists knew about the concept of "creep" BUT did not consider this concept.
- High stress --> faster decomposition --> Creep rate is high. Low stress --> slower decomposition --> creep rate is low

No mention of chemical composition.

Why would rocks high up on the mountains - thus subjected to low stress - be more fluid? In fact, rocks below the Earth's surface have high pressure and hence will be in a fluid state. (Read last two sentences of P5)

As we saw, stress determines the state of the rock. Moreover, think about "strength paradox". We all know the term "paradox" thanks to CR :') So what would be so paradoxical of "strengthen of rocks" ---> Well rocks are strong BUT this strength depends on the pressure to which they are subjected. High pressure --> rocks in a fluid state. Lower pressure --> Strong and solid-state.

I can't find "scene locations" anywhere in the argument.

I would like some expert to comment on (E). All I can say is that "creep" has been mentioned later in the passage. There is no connection shown between "mountain belts" and "creep"

Answer:  (C)

6. According to the author of the passage, geologists and geophysicists could have resolved their theoretical argument if they had

By now we know that "creep" was a concept that the two didn't consider despite of the geologists knowing " that some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even vicious ". So the correct answer choice will highlight this idea. (Read P4)

(A) more carefully reviewed the fossa evidence -  NO  - This is evidence used by geologists to make their case (read P2)
(B) closely examined the physical appearance of the Earth's surface rock -  NO  - No physical appearance has been mentioned as evidence to be used to prove any point of view.
(C) applied their knowledge of the effects of stress to the geological evidence -  YES  - in line with what we thought
(D) known about the phenomenon of creep -  NO  - " failed to connect this evidence with a phenomenon they knew " (read P4)
(E) understood more completely the effects of phenomena such as earthquakes -  NO  - Used as evidence by geophysicists to make their point (read P3)

Answer:  (C)

7. The author suggests that the major reason for the disagreement between early twentieth-century geologists and geophysicists was that each group

(A) reached conflicting conclusions from separate analyses of the fossil record -  NO  - only geologists used fossil records (read P1)
(B) interpreted the evidence of rock deformations differently -  NO  - nowhere has this been mentioned in the passage
(C) examined data on different kinds of phenomena -  HOLD  - the author states in P1 that the argument could have been avoided had the two groups agreed to the idea "Everything flows". So had the two groups fixed on one common thought the debate wouldn't have taken place. Later in P2 and P3 the author goes ahead and describes the viewpoints and the evidence backing the two viewpoints of these two groups. Thus the author shows  why  these two schools of thought arrived at two different conclusions leading to a debate that could have been avoided in the first place.
(D) based their respective theories on conflicting estimates of the Earth's age -  NO  - Nowhere has this been mentioned 
(E) made different though equally inaccurate assumptions about the Earth's history -  NO  - no assumptions about the Earth's age has been used as evidence

Answer:  (C)

8. Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage?

Making a short summary of each paragraph will help us get an idea of the passage and thus answer "Primary purpose" and "organization of the passage" type questions.

The passage presents two viewpoints about a phenomenon and not one. Moreover, the argument is about an overall debate and the reasons for the debate. This choice fails to cover that aspect

A debate is presented and its irrelevance is highlighted by covering a concept that the two groups forgot to consider.

I am okay with "a scientific dispute" BUT what are the possible resolutions? The author doesn't list down various resolutions. He simply states the reasons and irrelevance of the dispute

Pretty much every word of this sentence is incorrect. The author doesn't present  A hypothesis / He rather presents two viewpoints on one scientific topic. Moreover, the author doesn't bring in "new" evidence. He rather talks about a concept that the two groups knew but failed to consider while evaluating their arguments. Lastly, the author does not support the validity of an idea. He rather is trying to tell us how unproductive and irrelevant this entire debate was.

Well, given that we rejected all four choices, this has to be the answer, or else we will need to go back and start being more "open" to a few choices. However, this choice does cover the passage by and large. Yes, the irrelevance of a debate is not covered BUT it does talk about (i) scientific dispute, which is the same as a debate. (ii) summary of this debate: In P1 the author introduces the topic and gives us his view already about how this debate would not have taken place had they agreed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. (iii) reasons for the occurrence of this debate are offered: P2 and P3 talk about the evidence used by each group to back their viewpoint. P4 talks about why these two groups arrive at two different conclusions - They forgot about the concept "creep". P5 further elaborates on this concept.

Answer:  (E)

9. Which of the following statements, if true, is most compatible with the principle underlying the geophysicists' citation of Mt. Everest as evidence for their theories?

This idea is covered in P3. So we should go back and re-read the para. Clearly, the idea conveyed is that the mountain is as string as the base. If the base is weak, the structure will collapse.

(A) A one-hundred-story building must have a much stronger base than is necessary for a twenty-story building of similar materials. -  YES - This is exactly what we mentioned above. The taller the structure the stronger the base or else it would collapse. 
(B) A thin external material like glass makes a skyscraper less vulnerable to stress from wind than does a thick material like brick. -  NO  - the material is not something that has been discussed. 
(C) The girders supporting the ceilings and floors on higher levels of a multistory building must be stronger than those supporting ceilings and floors on lower levels. -  NO  - We know that the base must be stronger. So the grinders at the base must be stronger than the grinders on higher floors.
(D) Multistory buildings in earthquake zones must obey height restrictions because of the probability of seismic stress. -  NO  - height restrictions are not covered in the passage. All we care about is taller the structure = stronger the base.
(E) Buildings with foundations composed of relatively rigid materials art less subject to creep. -  NO  - Material is not discussed. Besides "creep" depends on the temperature of the rocks and not the rigidity of the material.

Answer:  (A)

KarishmaB · Answer

5. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following statements best expresses the "strength paradox" (Highlighted)?

(A) Some rocks arc rigid and brittle, whereas others are fluid and ductile depending on their chemical composition. 
(B) Rocks at the base of mountains may be very rigid while rocks higher up the mountain are more fluid. 
(C) The rigidity of the same rock can vary widely depending on the physical stresses acting on it. 
(D) Rocks in scene locations on the Earth's surface are far more rigid and brittle than are other rocks subjected to comparable stress. 
(E) The strength of rocks in mountain belts varies according to the rate of creep in a particular location.

The "strength paradox" had been familiar to generations of geologists from the study of rock deformations in mountain belts, where it had been observed that some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even viscous. But both geologists and geophysicists failed to connect this evidence with a phenomenon they knew in the context of practical problems of structural engineering "creep”.

Strength paradox is explained as some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even viscous
Creep is a separate but interconnected phenomenon that they knew.
Strength paradox only says that some strong rocks had been ductile in the past. Hence (C) is correct. 
Option (E) may be true but it is not what "strength paradox" is and hence it is not the answer for this question.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following statements best expresses the "strength paradox" (Highlighted)?

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement and that is what we have to find in the answer choices, Because this is a specific purpose question we can go back and read the related text again. Always read a line or two before and after the highlighted text.

"There followed a classic confrontation, pitting "movement" against "rigidity," which in retrospect need never have occurred. The "strength paradox" had been familiar to generations of geologists from the study of rock deformations in mountain belts, where it had been observed that some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even viscous."

Now read the answer choices and use POE

(A) Some rocks arc rigid and brittle, whereas others are fluid and ductile depending on their chemical composition.

There is no contradiction in this statement.

(B) Rocks at the base of mountains may be very rigid while rocks higher up the mountain are more fluid.

Same as (A) There is no contradiction in this statement.

(C) The  rigidity of the same rock can vary widely  depending on the physical stresses acting on it.

The underlined portion in this statement suggest that there is some contradiction in this statement. Keep it.

(D) Rocks in scene locations on the Earth's surface are far more rigid and brittle than are other rocks subjected to comparable stress.

This looks promising in the start but clearly not in line with the related text above.

(E) The strength of rocks in mountain belts varies according to the rate of creep in a particular location.

This is a trap answer but is not in line with the related text above.

Answer: C

memayank · Answer

I think answer of Question 6 is not accurate as there is no where in the passage it is said that stress is the reason of dispute. Though it is mention that both the group should have studied about temperature and time scale. Also, it is said that it was the phenomena of creep which both missed to take into consideration.

AndrewN Please suggest.

AndrewN  Please suggest.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  memayank . I just took a look at the question (again, since I first completed it in late December), and I answered the same way I did the first time. I will outline my thought process below in an effort to assist you and the larger community.

The opening line of the passage, which spans the entire first paragraph, touches on the very matter at hand. We can anticipate that the axiom  "Everything flows"  will relate to the answer, even if we are unsure what that might mean at this point.

Paragraph two is centered on  geologists , while three shifts to  geophysicists , with no debate or crossover in view.

Paragraph four places the  classic confrontation, pitting "movement" against "rigidity,"  front and center, and we are told that the debate  need never have occurred , so we are getting close to our answer. I will reproduce the paragraph below for reference while we break down the answer choices.

The second and third sentences tell us that  both geologists and geophysicists failed to connect   with a phenomenon   "creep."  The rest of the paragraph defines the term "creep."

So, what could have resolved the theoretical argument? If geologists and geophysicists had  what ?

Although fossils are mentioned in paragraph two, the paragraph on geologists, such  evidence  is only referred to as a starting point in the formation of their theory that  the continents must have moved  at some point in the past. The author of the passage does not indicate anything about the  fossa evidence  holding the potential to have resolved the debate that ensued.

The fifth and final paragraph does mention  rocks at the Earth's surface , but the author does not go on to say that early twentieth-century scientists should have observed their  physical appearance  more carefully to have settled their dispute. I will touch on the larger context of the final paragraph in a moment.

There is nothing to find fault with here. Paragraph four states that    knew  of the phenomenon known as "creep"  in the context of practical problems of structural engineering . Creep is  observed in materials that are subjected to relatively low  stresses  for very long periods of time  (my italics). The only question that remains is whether we, as readers, can connect this oversight with the  geological evidence  mentioned in the answer choice. Yes, we can. We even get two chances on this one. First, the line I quoted above tells us that  both geologists and geophysicists failed to connect this evidence with a phenomenon they knew — this  refers to the previous line and the "strength paradox," which sounds decidedly related to geology:

If we had any doubts, though, the final paragraph circles back to the debate and how it could have been avoided:

The rest of the paragraph (and, indeed, the passage) discusses the melting temperatures of rock beneath the surface of the Earth and how creep occurs  readily... on time scales of more than a few million years . We can safely say that, according to the author, the scientists could have avoided all their bickering if they had simply connected A and B, the creep phenomenon and the geological evidence.

That line in the middle of the fourth paragraph cannot be ignored:

If the two groups of scientists had known about the  phenomenon  of creep, even in a different context, then we cannot get behind this answer choice.

Earthquakes are mentioned in paragraph three, the one on geophysicists, but fall off the passage map thereafter, and are certainly not mentioned within the context of something that could have resolved the theoretical argument. This should be an easy elimination.

The takeaway here is that, especially in Supporting Idea(s) questions, those framed "According to the passage," we need to be able to point to evidence in the text to support our answer. No real inference should be necessary to connect the dots.

Perhaps the question makes more sense now. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

hadimadi · Answer

KarishmaB

Hi,

the strength paradox as described in the text doesn't mention anything about 'physical stress'. Only once we connect it to what is further explained we would be able to do so. That's why I initially ruled out (C). 
But since (C) is still better than any other choice, we still use (C)?

Thanks

KarishmaB · Answer

The passage explains that it is linked to physical stress, even if it is not given at the same place. These are the dots you will need to connect especially in higher level "infer" questions.

Main question - Had continents moved?

Some geologists said they did (looking at the shape etc).

Some geophysicist said that Earth is hard and rigid outside. You can see that rocks at the base of mountains like ten-kilometer-high Everest had to be able to withstand enormous  stress  or they would crack and the mountains collapse. So the Earth was simply too strong for the continents to move.
...
But this issue needn't have arisen. Geologists knew the strength paradox.
The "strength paradox" had been familiar to generations of geologists from the  study of rock deformations in mountain belts , where it had been observed that some quite rigid rocks had in the past been highly ductile, on occasion even viscous. 
The failed to link it to creep observed in materials that are subjected to relatively low stresses for very long periods of time; the materials deform continuously...

So it seems that stress can lead to rock deformations in mountain belts and that is what strength paradox is.

Rickooreo · Answer

Can someone please explain why option B in Q1 is incorrect?

I rejected option C because - he doesn't analyze the reason for the dispute but provides resolutions of the dispute wherein he says this dispute can be resolved by

But both geologists and geophysicists failed to connect this evidence with a phenomenon they knew in the context of practical problems of structural engineering "creep”. 
Thus, before talking of the -strength" of rocks, both groups of scientists should have known something of the temperature of the rocks they were studying and should have specified the time scale under consideration.

Why can't the above be inferred as resolution of dispute

I rejected C by the above logic, B seemed to be the only option I was unable to eliminate, and the rationale for B can be inferred from But both geologists and geophysicists failed to connect this evidence with a phenomenon they knew in the context of practical problems of structural engineering "creep???.

This can be interpreted as since both evaluated the theory in a limited context / evidence, there is simplification of the theory presented by them

Also to understand how is resolution of dispute different from providing reasons for dispute - Q8

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

The only "oversimplification" in this passage is the notion that solid materials, such as rock, are completely rigid. The passage does correct this oversimplification by introducing the notion of 'creep'—but that can't be the MAIN IDEA or PRIMARY PURPOSE, because it takes up so little room in the passage (just the last half of the 4th paragraph out of 5).

The bulk of the passage is about a disagreement between geologists and geophysicists over whether continents moved on the prehistoric earth: first setting out the two sides of the issue, and then (after correcting the oversimplification of 'rigidity') reconciling the two sides and showing that they wouldn't even have disagreed if they had taken some additional ideas into account.

Hm? The author spends the first 3.5 paragraphs doing exactly this.

Only in the 5th and final paragraph.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

"Reasons FOR a dispute" are  causes  of the dispute: the conflicting views themselves, and the circumstances that brought them into direct conflict.

"Resolution of a dispute" refers to how the dispute is SETTLED / SOLVED.

These are completely distinct things, so, sorry, but I don't really know how to answer "How are they different?"—a question that only makes sense if it's asked about things that are  mostly similar .

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.

If early twentieth-century geologists and geo- physicists had heeded

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

If early twentieth-century geologists and geo- physicists had heeded

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