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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 1808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
18 Jun 2026, 09:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
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:
61% (01:51) correct
39%
(02:16)
wrong
based on 160
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Unlike stars, planets do not generate light, but only reflect it. Besides stars, there are many other celestial objects in this galaxy that are not planets. Hence, there are celestial objects in this galaxy that generate light but are not stars.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that
(A) this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other than planets
(B) celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects in the universe
(C) celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects that generate light
(D) there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability to generate light
(E) planets are not the only celestial objects that do not generate light
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that
(A) this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other than planets
(B) celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects in the universe
(C) celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects that generate light
(D) there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability to generate light
(E) planets are not the only celestial objects that do not generate light
18 Jun 2026, 11:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Unlike stars, planets do not generate light, but only reflect it. Besides stars, there are many other celestial objects in this galaxy that are not planets. Hence, there are celestial objects in this galaxy that generate light but are not stars.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that
The argument treats “not planets” as if it means “generate light.” But that does not follow. There may be celestial objects that are neither planets nor stars and still do not generate light. That is the flaw.
(A) this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other than planets
This would not weaken the argument. The issue is not whether only planets reflect light.
(B) celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects in the universe
This is irrelevant. The argument is only about objects in this galaxy.
(C) celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects that generate light
This is irrelevant. The argument does not claim that only objects in this galaxy generate light.
(D) there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability to generate light
This is irrelevant. The argument concerns only whether nonplanet objects generate light.
(E) planets are not the only celestial objects that do not generate light
This is correct. If some nonplanet celestial objects also do not generate light, then the fact that many objects are not planets does not prove that some nonstars generate light.
Answer: (E)
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider the possibility that
The argument treats “not planets” as if it means “generate light.” But that does not follow. There may be celestial objects that are neither planets nor stars and still do not generate light. That is the flaw.
(A) this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other than planets
This would not weaken the argument. The issue is not whether only planets reflect light.
(B) celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects in the universe
This is irrelevant. The argument is only about objects in this galaxy.
(C) celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects that generate light
This is irrelevant. The argument does not claim that only objects in this galaxy generate light.
(D) there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability to generate light
This is irrelevant. The argument concerns only whether nonplanet objects generate light.
(E) planets are not the only celestial objects that do not generate light
This is correct. If some nonplanet celestial objects also do not generate light, then the fact that many objects are not planets does not prove that some nonstars generate light.
Answer: (E)
18 Jun 2026, 12:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here's the structure of the argument:
Stars generate light; planets only reflect it (don't generate).
Besides stars, there are many other celestial objects in the galaxy that are not planets.
Conclusion: therefore, some celestial objects generate light but aren't stars.
The hidden assumption is that these "other objects" (the non-stars that are also non-planets) must generate light. But why would that follow? The argument seems to reason: "planets are the things that don't generate light, so anything that isn't a planet must generate light." That only works if planets are the only non-light-generating objects.
If there are other celestial objects besides planets that also fail to generate light, then those leftover non-star, non-planet objects might all be non-light-generating too --> and the conclusion collapses. The argument never rules this out, which is exactly what (E) points to.
Quick check on why the others fail:
(A) concerns reflecting light, which is irrelevant to whether the conclusion about generating light holds.
(B) the proportion of universe-wide objects has no bearing on the within-galaxy inference.
(C) other galaxies generating light doesn't affect a conclusion scoped to this galaxy.
(D) other star-vs-planet distinctions are beside the point; the argument turns solely on light generation.
So (E) is the vulnerability.
Stars generate light; planets only reflect it (don't generate).
Besides stars, there are many other celestial objects in the galaxy that are not planets.
Conclusion: therefore, some celestial objects generate light but aren't stars.
The hidden assumption is that these "other objects" (the non-stars that are also non-planets) must generate light. But why would that follow? The argument seems to reason: "planets are the things that don't generate light, so anything that isn't a planet must generate light." That only works if planets are the only non-light-generating objects.
If there are other celestial objects besides planets that also fail to generate light, then those leftover non-star, non-planet objects might all be non-light-generating too --> and the conclusion collapses. The argument never rules this out, which is exactly what (E) points to.
Quick check on why the others fail:
(A) concerns reflecting light, which is irrelevant to whether the conclusion about generating light holds.
(B) the proportion of universe-wide objects has no bearing on the within-galaxy inference.
(C) other galaxies generating light doesn't affect a conclusion scoped to this galaxy.
(D) other star-vs-planet distinctions are beside the point; the argument turns solely on light generation.
So (E) is the vulnerability.
