Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth

Question

Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.

(A) many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years

(B) for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive

(C) there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose

(D) the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth

(E) a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth’s orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

Artificial Satellites

Step 1: Identify the Question

This is a  Fill in the Blank  question. Typically, Fill in the Blank questions are actually  Strengthen the Argument  questions, although you’ll need to read the argument fully to be certain.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Sats vs small debris: fewer sats, but interfere more with telescopes

Proposal: explode sats to stop interference

The conclusion of this argument is that the  proposal is ill conceived . The word proposal refers to the  proposal  that satellites be exploded in space. The blank in the argument is connected to the conclusion with the word  since , indicating that the blank will provide support for the conclusion. Treat this as a  Strengthen  problem.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On  Strengthen  problems, the right answer will make the conclusion more likely to be correct. In this case, the conclusion is that the proposal (exploding the satellites) is ill conceived. The right answer will support the idea that the proposal is ill conceived. That is, it will work against the proposal.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This answer choice does not clarify whether exploding the satellites is a good idea. If nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years, exploding them could either be good (because it will reduce strong reflections without consequences) or bad (because it will have unintended negative consequences).

(B) This answer choice actually works in favor of the proposal, not against it. If the satellites cannot be repaired, then exploding them makes more sense.

(C) This answer choice suggests that because the plan has not been tried before, it is a bad idea. However, the argument does not show this, and it isn’t necessarily true. With the information provided, it’s equally likely that exploding the satellites will be unexpectedly bad, or unexpectedly successful.

(D) This answer choice seems to imply that because the proposal will not eliminate all interference, it will not be successful. However, the argument does not state that the purpose of the proposal is to eliminate all interference. Instead, the purpose is to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites. If the proposal eliminates this specific source of interference, it will be successful, even if there is still some interference affecting ground telescope observations.

(E) CORRECT . The argument does not state that the leftover debris from exploding the satellites will be removed. Presumably, it will remain in orbit, and there will therefore be a larger amount of small debris in orbit. This answer choice states that an increased amount of small debris would prevent certain telescope observations. Preventing these observations is a potential drawback of the plan.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Responding to a pm:

Problem: Debris interferes with telescope observations but a few large satellites interfere more seriously because of strong reflections.
Solution: Explode the satellites. Since large satellites interfere more seriously, convert them to debris. The interference will be reduced since debris causes less interference.

Question: What is the problem with the solution?
(E) A large increases in the number of small particles will create a blanket of reflections. This will cause serious interference with telescope observations. Makes sense. Correct answer.
(D) Doesn't tell us why it is a bad idea to convert satellites to debris. Just says what you should do if you want to get rid of interference completely. Our plan is to decrease interference and this option doesn't tell us why it will not work. We have to focus on the option that tells us exactly why our plan will not work. Our plan is not to completely get rid of interference but to reduce it. We want to improve the observations. It tells us what we can do to make them perfect. But it doesn't say that we will not be able to improve our observations using our solution.

bsd_lover · Answer

Its a close one between D and E - I go for E but very reluctantly. I'd be interested to see the OE for this.

pmenon · Answer

im almost certain that this one is E.

bkk145 · Answer

E. exploding satellite makes more interferences; hence, ill conceived.

gmat blows · Answer

I was stuck between D and E but chose D.

For E to work, we have to assume that exploding them will indeed increase number of small particles IN THE ORBIT that interferes with the telescope observations (what if exploding it allows the particles to be shoot out so far out into space that it may increase the number of small particles but is now in an orbit that wont interfere with the telescope observations so it doesnt matter that the number increased) 
where as with D, we can try to modify all the other factors (i.e. remove debris or explode large satellites) but if the problem remains with the telescope itself, doing all of that is not going to make a difference.

kyatin · Answer

This one is close but I pick E.

because questions is why the idea of exploding is ill conceived..this idea will make problem qouted in D worse but that problem will exist even without this explosion solution.
E is more direct I believe.

dushver · Answer

One more for E, best choice among the available options.

mourinhogmat1 · Answer

I agree E is the only solution which points out the problem with the proposal. The argument is awfully wordy. You need to cut the fluff to really get to the crux.

Achu · Answer

Debris causes little interference, while satellites causes more.

Little interference is not the problem.....so we can live with debris that goes round merrily.

Hence, D is a good solution, but doesn't help with the main issue....kaput satellites!....so D doesn't address the main issue.

They suggest exploding the satellites....which may cause 'more' debris......'less' debris is ok..more debris may cause more interference....hence ill conceived....E says it all.

Hope this helps

LogicGuru1 · Answer

D is incorrect because, if the only way to make good observations without interference is to launch the telescope into the space itself, then there is no need to explode the satellites in the first place.
E is also a third rate option because "Explode" can mean many things, - a blast that creates small pieces (if this is the case then E is correct), or a blast that generates so much heat that completely vaporises the material (then E is wrong), a blast that creates so much of the momentum that the resulting fragments are thrown away into outer space away from the field of view of the telescope (then this is again wrong)... Also the use of phrase in E " certain  valuable telescope observations impossible" restricts it as a good option..

Well, so much for a concise and clear answer.
I will still chose E if i encounter such a silly question in GMAT

Nunuboy1994 · Answer

E basically states blowing up these satellites would defeat the purpose of blowing them up because it would just make telescope observations harder- don't swat a fly on your face with a butcher's knife

JAIN09 · Answer

option D:may be true.but it does not address the plan/conclusion that exploding non functional satellite will decrease the interference

manishk30 · Answer

That is why you should remember the conclusion always. Conclusion is the idea of explosion is ill conceived. We have to provide the reason of why it is so. Option D does not say anything about why we should not explode the useless satellites.

HimanshuW11 · Answer

Argument Analysis: 
 Premises:  Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce.
2. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, 
 Conclusion:  the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.
How do I know, what to do in the fill in the blank: This proposal, however,  is ill conceived , since _______
Which clearly shows that we need to weaken the proposal/conclusion

(A) many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years

(B) for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive

(C) there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose

(D) the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth

Only option that does what's required. Observation would be impossible if the number of small particles in earth's orbit increase, then we have no reason to explode the useless satellites as exploding would convert them into the small particles.

CEdward · Answer

Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.

(A) many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years X
What we are looking for is a reason why it would be a bad idea to explode the non-functioning satellites. Knowing that nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years is not a reason at all.

(B) for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive X
This could arguably give us more reason to explode them in space, but that’s not the direction we want to go in

(C) there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on purpose X
Well why not now? The fact that hasn’t happened in the past is not (at least for this argument) a strong support for why it shouldn’t happen now

(D) the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth 
Does not serve as the reason we need.

(E) a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth’s orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible 
Correct – there goes the observations…the whole point is to be able to make such observations…blowing up the satellites would just compound the problem

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.

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth

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

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth

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