Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 23:58

It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 23:58

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Verbal Archive [Locked]

CR Archive

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
Your Progress

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 23
A Non-Native’s Journey to GMAT 695 with V88 (99th percentile)
01:30 AM EDT
-
02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 23
Free full-length test!
08:00 PM PDT
-
09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 25
From ‘GMAT Is Not for Me’ to a 695— Beating Her Target by 50 Points
12:30 AM EDT
-
01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 1: Materials

1 2 3 4

harishg

Joined: 18 Dec 2018

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

174

Given Kudos: 31

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Posts: 176

Kudos: 174

15 Dec 2025, 11:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

A - We already know wind abrasion occurs. We would like to know if it’s the cause of the ripple band effect.

B - The conclusion only says that chemical crystallisation is likely. It doesn’t that say that that’s the only other way.

C - The fact that it does not include surface features may not affect our argument unless more is known about these features.

D - If the ripple bands were formed at different times, then it is a possibility that even highly variable wind patterns can produce the said patterns. This is our answer.

E - The two hypotheses need not explain how the coarse and fine grains arrived there. It’s not a weakener.

Therefore, Option D

aka007

Joined: 15 Nov 2019

Last visit: 19 Mar 2026

Posts: 42

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 84

Posts: 42

Kudos: 37

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 11:28

Kudos

Bookmarks

The scientists argue that Ripple Bands are caused due to Wind Abrasion or Chemical Crystallisation. However, since the winds are not uniform over the specific location he assumes that the uniform rings of the ripple bands can not be formed with varying wind patterns. Hence the reason must be chemical crystallisation.

The scientist assumes that if one isn't the reason that is wind abrasion in this case hence the ripple bands are formed due to the other hypothesis. However, he fails to consider the other possibilities of this phenomenon. This must be used to attack the scientists argument.

Hence answer is B

Bunuel

Materials scientist: “Ripple bands” are patterned surface formations consisting of a raised ring of coarse grains surrounding a center of finer grains. They are found mainly on high-altitude desert flats. In attempts to explain how they were formed, two hypotheses are currently most commonly debated: one proposes wind abrasion, the other proposes chemical crystallization. But wind abrasion cannot be the complete explanation for the uniformity in width of the ripple bands on the Atira Plateau, located in a region with highly variable wind patterns. Therefore, chemical crystallization, either from saline groundwater or surface deposits, was likely involved in the formation of the bands.

Which of the following would, if true, most weaken the scientist’s argument?

A. Field measurements show that wind abrasion is currently occurring at many ripple-band sites on the Atira Plateau.
B. The two hypotheses do not exhaust the possibilities regarding formation processes for ripple bands.
C. The definition given for ripple bands excludes many surface features that may be caused by wind abrasion or chemical crystallization.
D. The ripple bands on the Atira Plateau were probably not all formed at the same time.
E. Neither of the two hypotheses explains how coarse and fine grains came to be on the Atira Plateau in the first place.

suntincidunt

Joined: 08 Dec 2025

Last visit: 16 Dec 2025

Posts: 8

Own Kudos:

Posts: 8

Kudos: 3

15 Dec 2025, 11:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

B. The scientist has mentioned 2 debated hypothesis. Since these are hypothesis and not theories, they don't have great credibility.

Bunuel

obedear

Joined: 05 Sep 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 61

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 11

Products:

Posts: 61

Kudos: 39

15 Dec 2025, 11:51

Kudos

Bookmarks

I selected E.

The scientists argument is simply that chemical crystallization was likely involved in the formation. We need to select answer that is most likely to give a reason why chemical crystallization could NOT have been involved.

A - Not related to chemical crystallization.
B - Other explanations for the formation process of the bands exist; this does not specifically imply that chemical crystallization could not have been involved.
C - There are other features of the bands that may be caused by chemical crystallization, if anything this supports the scientists' argument.
D - Just because they were not formed at the same time does not mean chemical crystallization could not have taken place over a period of time.
E - If the presence of the grains can not be explained by either hypothesis, then that means that the grains must have come from somewhere outside of the Altira Plateau. Therefore, the scientists argument that the chemical crystallization from groundwater or surface deposits would not be correct as that implies the grains come from the Plateau itself.

Aboyhasnoname

Joined: 19 Jan 2025

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 302

Own Kudos:

100

[1]

Given Kudos: 64

Products:

Posts: 302

Kudos: 100

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 11:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

Simple...Two Hypothesis are being debated...Wind or chemical...Scientist....since its not Wind then it must be chemical.....but what if there are other possibilities? Suppose an alien making these rings from Mars....The reason of choosing 1 hypothesis cant be rejection of the other as first there are many hypothesis ( refer to line where it says two are most debated).....
Answer B......

I'll also try to answer why not C.....excludes many surface features....that may be cause by wind abrasion or chemical crystalisation ..now we have absolutely no clue what these features are ...are they the same or different...its completely in the dark....Author has given a valid reason to eliminate Wind Abrasion..Unless something attacks. that directly..we can't say about unknown features.....

Bunuel

Dereno

Joined: 22 May 2020

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,398

Own Kudos:

1,373

[1]

Given Kudos: 425

Products:

Posts: 1,398

Kudos: 1,373

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 12:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Material scientists are explaining about Ripple Band, a structure seemed at high altitude desert flats. In order to explain how they are formed : they put forth two hypotheses - Wind abrasion and Chemical Crystallisation. The question explains the formation of Ripple bands structure.

The two hypotheses are an idea put forth by the material scientists on how a ripple band is formed, even though the theory explains separate logic behind how the structure is formed. The logic and principles involved can be different.

Wind Abrasion : The uniformity of the width of ripple bands cannot be explained, because the winds have a variable pattern. Hence, the possibility of uniformity of width patterns cannot exists.

Therefore, the Chemical Crystallisation due to saline ground water or surface deposits might be cause for creation of Ripple bands.

The material scientists takes a stand that since one hypothesis fails, then they take a route that hypothesis 2 can be the only reason for the formation of Ripple Band. But, the material scientist have failed to think out of box, that there is a greater likelihood that a different hypothesis can exists to explain the creation of Ripple bands.

Hence, Option B is the strong weakening statement.

AviNFC

Joined: 31 May 2023

Last visit: 10 Apr 2026

Posts: 306

Own Kudos:

366

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 306

Kudos: 366

15 Dec 2025, 12:19

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Field measurements show that wind abrasion is currently occurring at many ripple-band sites on the Atira Plateau. Wrong. While this may be true, it cannot jusify the contradition in Atira

B. The two hypotheses do not exhaust the possibilities regarding formation processes for ripple bands.This does't weaken, only says other possibilities may b present
C. The definition given for ripple bands excludes many surface features that may be caused by wind abrasion or chemical crystallization.Wrong. Irrelevant. The finding in Atira is under consideration
D. The ripple bands on the Atira Plateau were probably not all formed at the same time. Correct. May b the formation takes place only during a specfic time of a year
E. Neither of the two hypotheses explains how coarse and fine grains came to be on the Atira Plateau in the first place.Irrelevant. How the grains are present does not explain about formation

Ans D

officiisestyad

Joined: 25 Oct 2025

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 44

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 37

Location: India

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Real Estate

GMAT Focus 1: 515 Q78 V79 DI70 Verified score

GMAT 1: 510 Q50 V47 Verified score

GPA: 10

WE:Other (Other)

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 515 Q78 V79 DI70 Verified score

GMAT 1: 510 Q50 V47 Verified score

Posts: 44

Kudos: 37

15 Dec 2025, 12:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

C. As it fails to consider that increased revenue doesn't necessarily imply increased profit

SSWTtoKellogg

Joined: 06 Mar 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 20

Location: India

Schools: INSEAD Jan '27

GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q83 V78 DI77 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q87 V79 DI79 Verified score

GPA: 8.8

Schools: INSEAD Jan '27

GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q87 V79 DI79 Verified score

Posts: 90

Kudos: 58

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 12:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

This is a Cass of false dichotomy. There might be more than 2 hypothesis.

Hence, B.

canopyinthecity

Joined: 12 Jul 2025

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 19

Posts: 92

Kudos: 61

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 12:51

Kudos

Bookmarks

Main Point: Chemical crystallization is likely involved in the formation of the bands.
Basis: There are 2 commonly debated hypotheses - WA and CC.
WA cannot be the explanation for uniformity of width, given variable wind patterns.
Logic: There are 2 hypotheses. Since one of them is not correct, the other could be correct.
Gaps: 1. What if there are other possibilities? 2. Even if one is incorrect, there is no evidence to defend that the other could be correct. 3. Is the reason behind declining the first possibility good enough?

We need to identify the option that weakens the argument

(A), (C), (D) - Irrelevant to the argument
(E) - This is an open question left in the statement, but this does not impact the argument
(B) is the answer - as it clearly tells a weakness of the argument logic.

Natansha

Joined: 13 Jun 2019

Last visit: 11 Mar 2026

Posts: 195

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 84

Posts: 195

Kudos: 65

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 12:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion is of the form since A cant do this, B did this, basically if winds can't explain the formation, chemical crystallisation must have caused it. But what if there's any 3rd or 4th way it had happened, that would weaken the author's conclusion which is exactly what B says.

Ans B.

Rishi705

Joined: 25 Apr 2024

Last visit: 02 Feb 2026

Posts: 53

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 21

Posts: 53

Kudos: 41

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 13:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

Let's break down the question

The first is a fact that tells us about ripple bands.
The second gives us a fact about their geographic location
The third there are two possible hypothesis.
The fourth sentence states the 2 hypothesis.
The fifth second refutes the first hypothesis.
The sixth statement uses the fifth statement as evidence to draw a conclusion. it says that since the previous hypothesis doesn't work, then this must work without actually presenting any evidence.
By this analysis, I can feel that this is going to be a weaken the argument question.
It is.

There are a few ways to be in this argument. one being structurally as I have described above.
Another way could be to could strengthen the case for hypothesis 1, or something that would weaken the case for hypothesis 2.

a. The first says that the phenomena from hypothesis one is occurring. really tell us if it's causing or not causing the ripple Band phenomena.

c. This says that ripple bands don't include some of the features that the hypothesis can cause, but we have very little information about how these hypothesis actually cause this phenomena, hence, we can't draw any conclusions based on this.
D. this seems to strengthen the first hypothesis a bit that maybe they formed in one wind situation and that is why the wind variation does not matter. It doesn't specifically mention that, so it's not so strong to refute the argument.
E it says that the hypothesis is not an explanation of one feature, but it's a hypothesis is not supposed to explain how things are happening when we have to read the entire research for that I guess.

Honestly, after I see my answers, it becomes a little difficult to evaluate the remaining options but I still try and if some option really trips me up, I reevaluated, but I didn't feel that in this situation.

b. This structurally weaken the argument by saying that the two mentioned possibilities are not the only possibilities out there. I believe this one is correct.

Bunuel

jkkamau

Joined: 25 May 2020

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 226

Own Kudos:

190

Given Kudos: 142

Location: Kenya

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

Posts: 226

Kudos: 190

15 Dec 2025, 13:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Adds no value to the argument
B. It does not matter
C Irrelevant because those additional definitions do not matter
D. Correct if this is the case then the bands are likely different
E. This information is not relevant to the argument

Bunuel

Harika2024

Joined: 27 Jul 2024

Last visit: 16 Mar 2026

Posts: 99

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 31

Location: India

Posts: 99

Kudos: 84

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 15:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

we have to find the most weaken the scientist's conclusion

Lets analyse the question, breakdown of scientist logic:

1. Explain formation of ripple bands
2. Two hypothesis : Wind abrasion and chemical crystallization
3. wind abrasion cannot be complete explanation for uniform width of bands on plateau, because highly variable wind patterns.
4. Therefor chemical crystallization was likely involved in formation of bands

To weaken the conclusion we need to show that rejection of wind abrasion doesnt automatically prove or support chemical crystallization.

Now lets check the options :

Option A : This option supports the initial idea that wind abrasion is involved in some way. it doesnt weaken specific point that it cant explain uniformity of width, which is key reason the scientist rejects it as a complete explanation.

Option B : This is the main flaw. if there is another hypothesis , then the failure of wind abrasion doesnt make chemical crystallization more likely. Other hypothesis can be true. this completely destroys the scientist jump from Wind abrasion to chemical crystallization.

Option C : This suggest the scope of study is narrow. it doesnt weaken the conclusion about bands that were studies. we are only concerned with bands that are defined. so it is irrelevant

Option D : This doesnt help. Even if they formed at different times, the question remains, what mechanism formed them ? This doesnt provide an alternative or show a flaw in logic.

Option E : This is about source o fthe materials , not about formation of ripple bands. it suggest sa gap in ecplanation but not a flaw in scientist attempt to determine the pattern. so this is irrelevant.

Therefore the correct answer is B

flippedeclipse

Joined: 26 Apr 2025

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 105

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 37

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q80 V87 DI80 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q80 V87 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 105

Kudos: 73

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 19:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Let's go through the passage first.

Sentence 1 & 2: Description of ripple bands.
Sentence 3: Two hypotheses on how they're formed.
Sentence 4: Refutes hypothesis 1 because the wind patterns vary.
Sentence 5: The conclusion - had to be hypothesis 2.

To weaken, we need to find an option which doubts that hypothesis 2 is the answer.

Option A: Wind is happening on the plateau - we knew this already. Eliminate.
Option B: Essentially says that it's not just hypothesis 1 or 2, but could be a third option 3. It would break the argument if there was another reason, let's hold onto this.
Option C: Essentially says that there are other types of surface changes that wind and chemical crystallization do. Irrelevant, eliminate.
Option D: When the bands were formed has nothing to do with how they were formed, at least with the knowledge we have. Irrelevant, eliminate.
Option E: Size of grain has nothing to do with how the circles are formed, eliminate.

The only option that clearly weakens the argument is B.

bhanu29

Joined: 02 Oct 2024

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 358

Own Kudos:

270

Given Kudos: 263

Location: India

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

GPA: 9.11

WE:Engineering (Technology)

Products:

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

Posts: 358

Kudos: 270

15 Dec 2025, 19:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Looking at this argument, I need to identify its logical structure and find what would most weaken it.

The scientist argues:

Wind abrasion can't fully explain the uniform band width (given variable wind patterns)
Therefore, chemical crystallization was likely involved

This is a classic false dichotomy - the scientist assumes that if wind abrasion doesn't work, chemical crystallization must be the answer.

Option B directly attacks this false dichotomy by pointing out there could be other explanations beyond these two hypotheses. If there are other formation processes the scientist hasn't considered, then rejecting wind abrasion doesn't automatically support chemical crystallization.
Option A just shows wind abrasion happens now, but doesn't address whether it explains the uniform width issue - the scientist's main objection.
Option C is about definitions and scope, which doesn't touch the core logical problem of whether chemical crystallization follows from rejecting wind abrasion.
Option D about timing doesn't really matter - the uniformity problem remains whether bands formed simultaneously or not.
Option E shifts to a completely different question about grain origins, which is irrelevant to choosing between formation mechanisms.
The answer is B. By showing the two hypotheses "do not exhaust the possibilities," it undermines the scientist's implicit assumption that ruling out wind abrasion means chemical crystallization must be correct. There could be a third (or fourth) explanation that better accounts for the uniform band widths despite variable wind patterns.

SafSin28

Joined: 16 Aug 2022

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 84

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 60

Posts: 84

Kudos: 67

[1]

15 Dec 2025, 19:51

Kudos

Bookmarks

QS: Weaken
Argument: "Ripple bands" are raised ring of coarse grains surrounding finer ones. They are mainly found in deserts.--->Background info.
TWO hypothesis are most common to explain it: WIND ABRASION and CHEMICAL CRYSTALLIZATION.----> Premise 1. WIND ABRASION is excluded since it is not stable in the region and can't explain the uniformity of the formation. ----> Premise 2.
THEREFORE, CHEMICAL CRYSTTALIZATION was likely involved-----> CONCLUSION

A) Wind abrasion is CURRENTLY occuring at many places of that area. ---> (Main question here is: Do those many places include the current observed place? We don't know, SO OUT)
B) These two most common hypothesis do not exhaust possibilities of ripplr formation. So, There could be other factors that actually led to the ripple bands formation. In this scenario, it weakens the argument. Keep it.
C) Definition for given ripples excludes ....blah-blah. Ok but this doesn't weaken the argument. OUT
D) Ripple bands were not probably formed at the same time. What if they had formed at the same time. This also does not weaken the argument. OUT
E) Neither of the two hypothesis explains how ... . We don't care of the not applicability of the hypothesis. We just need to weaken the argument. For that reason, it is OUT

vikramadityaa

Joined: 28 Jul 2025

Last visit: 23 Dec 2025

Posts: 55

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 55

Kudos: 41

15 Dec 2025, 20:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

The scientist bases his argument on the fact that the uniformity in the width of the Ripple band cannot occur, as the wind is uneven, but if all the Ripple bands were not formed at the same time and were formed only when the wind abrasion was ideal and the same, to get the same width.

Oleksandra11

Joined: 18 Jul 2019

Last visit: 13 Apr 2026

Posts: 6

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 2

Products:

Posts: 6

Kudos: 2

15 Dec 2025, 21:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

E. The other answers support the author's claim.

Lizaza

Joined: 16 Jan 2021

Last visit: 29 Mar 2026

Posts: 240

Own Kudos:

282

Given Kudos: 7

GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40 Verified score

Posts: 240

Kudos: 282

15 Dec 2025, 22:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument states that 'ripple bands' (RB in future) cannot be caused by wind abrasion, since they're uniform in pattern, and the wind is completely diversified in one. And therefore, it is concluded that chemical crystallization 'was likely involved' in forming those bands.

The main assumption the author makes is that diversity of wind patterns precludes the uniformity of RB's - hence, this is the main point that can be 'attacked' by the weakener.

A. There was no point in doubting the fact that wind exists, so it's irrelevant.
B. Nice one, but the author doesn't say these two are exclusively at play; moreover, crystallization was 'likely' involved, there's no 100% certainty. Hence, it's not a weakener.
C. Whether or not it's the right definition, we're going ahead with that and other considerations are out of scope.
D. This looks like the right answer, since it specifically highlihgts that diverse wind patterns might not contradict nuiformity of RB's if they were formed at different times. Let's say there's a wind pattern X that is changed all the time - and who's then to say that all RB's couldn't be formed only when X winds were blowing? Like, each time there's an X wind pattern, one more RB appears:)
E. Since this is a given and undebated point (about the coarse grains), such an option is out of scope.

Therefore, the right answer is D.