Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a dens

Question

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small. A physicist isolated an entity less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside.
 
It would be certain that the physicist had isolated a Whorfian tubule if it were concluded by the physicist that

A. the physicist had been looking specifically for Whorfian tubules

B. Whorfian tubules are the only entities of immeasurably small mass with an inside diameter equal to their length

C. the density of what he had isolated was exactly half that of water

D. Whorfian tubules are only found under the conditions that the physicist had duplicated

E. Whorfian tubules were the only entities half the density of water with an immeasurably small mass

HarishV · Answer

Chose C....but B is definitely better than C.....

This question made me realize the importance of selecting the best answer rather than than "finding" the answer amongst the choices...

amma4u · Answer

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small. A physicist isolated an entity less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside.

It would be certain that the physicist had isolated a Whorfian tubule if it were concluded by the physicist that

the physicist had been looking specifically for Whorfian tubules - irrelevant
Whorfian tubules are the only entities of immeasurably small mass with an inside diameter equal to their length - the reason for him not to consider the WT.
the density of what he had isolated was exactly half that of water - this is talking about only one component of the WT (B overpowers C)
Whorfian tubules are only found under the conditions that the physicist had duplicated - out of scope
Whorfian tubules were the only entities half the density of water with an immeasurably small mass - This is a lot closer to B for me.

Can anyone explain exactly why "E" is wrong.

rg1 · Answer

IMO it's C

amma4u · Answer

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small. A physicist isolated an entity less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside.

It would be certain that the physicist had isolated a Whorfian tubule if it were concluded by the physicist that

the physicist had been looking specifically for Whorfian tubules - irrelevant
Whorfian tubules are the only entities of immeasurably small mass with an inside diameter equal to their length - the reason for him not to consider the WT.
the density of what he had isolated was exactly half that of water - this is talking about only one component of the WT (B overpowers C)
Whorfian tubules are only found under the conditions that the physicist had duplicated - out of scope
Whorfian tubules were the only entities half the density of water with an immeasurably small mass - This is a lot closer to B for me.

Can anyone explain exactly why "E" is wrong.

rg1 · Answer

I'm confused if question is about finding an assumption or about finding sub-conclusion?

nishk · Answer

A: Even if he had been looking only for Whorfian tubules he could have found something else with the same properties, hence wrong
B:Correct. If something else had similar properties this would fall apart (try negation test)
C: Exactly half of water - Not necessary for a conclusion
D: Could be true, but there could be other things also under same conditions, hence not a conclusion
E: Omits inside diameter equal to length hence wrong.

Answer B

frenzyadi · Answer

In choice E, it is mentioned "half the density"

But in question "A physicist isolated an entity less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside.", this point is not mentioned... thats y choose B over E

nikhilsamuel89 · Answer

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small. A physicist isolated an entity less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside.
WT : D(wt) = 0.5*D(water),  L=D, very small length 
Physicist found: st that has D(st) < D(water),  L=D, very small length

It would be certain that the physicist had isolated a Whorfian tubule if it were concluded by the physicist that

the physicist had been looking specifically for Whorfian tubules  Irrelevant 
Whorfian tubules are the only entities of immeasurably small mass with an inside diameter equal to their length  true 
the density of what he had isolated was exactly half that of water  We cannot conclude that it is WT 
Whorfian tubules are only found under the conditions that the physicist had  duplicated   Was there any duplication? No  
Whorfian tubules were the only entities half the density of water with an immeasurably small mass  not true

tvrs09 · Answer

I have some reservations w.r.t the correct answer mentioned here.

It is clearly mentioned in the last statement that the length of the entity that he found is same as that of the WT and option E covers the aspects of mass and diameter thereby completing the scope of comparison.

So according to me option E is the correct answer.

formulaone · Answer

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small. A physicist isolated an entity less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside.

It would be certain that the physicist had isolated a Whorfian tubule if it were concluded by the physicist that

A. The physicist had been looking specifically for Whorfian tubules -   Not relevant. He might be looking only for Whorfian tubules but might find something else as well.

B. Whorfian tubules are the only entities of immeasurably small mass with an inside diameter equal to their length
 -  No other entities have 'inside diameter equal to their length' and 'insufficient mass' other than Whorfian tubules. So if I can say that I found an entity that has 'inside diameter equal to their length' and 'insufficient mass', I am sure to have found Whorfian tubules -  irrespective of its density.    -  So the entity that the physicist found is a Whorfian tubule.

C. The density of what he had isolated was exactly half that of water -   But it is not mentioned that Whorfian tubules  are the only entities  which have inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small.

D. Whorfian tubules are only found under the conditions that the physicist had duplicated -   This does not remove the possibility of the existence of other entities under the condition the physicist had duplicated

E. Whorfian tubules were the only entities half the density of water with an immeasurably small mass -   "A physicist isolated an entity  less dense than water . The density of the entity that the physicist isolated is just less than water. it could be 3/4th, 1/4th or even 1/2. So it is not conclusive.

So B is the answer.

hdwnkr · Answer

Please evaluate my reasoning

the physicist had been looking specifically for Whorfian tubules - 
  Just because the physicist was searching only for WT, does not mean he could not find similar substance

Whorfian tubules are the only entities of immeasurably small mass with an inside diameter equal to their length 
  Narrows down the property of diameter = length to only WTs

the density of what he had isolated was exactly half that of water 
  contradicts the finding in the premise. The premise states density less than half of water. But, this option presents a different equation

Whorfian tubules are only found under the conditions that the physicist had duplicated 
  Moving the word "only" to the beginning of the statement, thereby restricting the ocurrence on only WTs

Whorfian tubules were the only entities half the density of water with an immeasurably small mass 
  What about the diameter?

sidharth2412 · Answer

IMO C
As it is already given that length=dia, only limiting factor is density which gets sufficed by C

B can be the answer but length=Dia is already given in the ques.
please correct me if i am wrong

Coun · Answer

Simply correlate with the information that we have. This is not the kind of question where overthinking is required.

We know that these tubules have "an inside diameter equal to their length, a density half that of water, and a mass that is immeasurably small."
So basically- Diameter, density and mass.
*Note- there's no way of knowing what the mass is, only that its very miniscule.

Now, the info of the 'entity' found is that it is "less dense than water, with insufficient mass to measure, and a length exactly equal to the diameter of its inside."

Right off the bat, mass checks off and density is deliberately left ambiguous. The only information that we are provided without any doubt is that of the diameter. Therefore, we must choose the option that attacks this condition precisely, that is, B.

The reason why I mentioned the do-not-overthink disclaimer is because the ambiguity of the density would lead to many people dismissing the option but we are not required to read between every line in this case.

UnityBliss · Answer

but isn't "only" in option B makes the language too strong?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

No, the "only" is exactly what makes this answer right. The question is asking for an answer that would make it CERTAIN that we have a Whorfian tubule, so we actually need an extreme like this. If I have found something with trait X, and WT's are the only things with that trait, then I must have a WT. But if there's even one other thing with that trait, then it's not certain whether I have a WT or not.

This type of question is rare on the GMAT. It's called a "sufficient assumption" question on the LSAT (where it is much more common), in case you want to find more. The key is that we're NOT looking for a necessary assumption, so we can't use the negation test or eliminate extremes. We're looking for an answer that actually makes the argument perfect, with no other info needed, so extremes can be quite helpful!

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a dens

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

Whorfian tubules have an inside diameter equal to their length, a dens

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