Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 15:54 It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 15:54
Close
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
anish123ster
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Last visit: 12 Sep 2013
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
311
 [20]
Given Kudos: 9
Posts: 40
Kudos: 311
 [20]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
17
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Narenn
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 9,293
Own Kudos:
11,303
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4,711
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Test: Test
Posts: 9,293
Kudos: 11,303
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
anish123ster
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Last visit: 12 Sep 2013
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
311
 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Posts: 40
Kudos: 311
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Narenn
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 9,293
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4,711
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Test: Test
Posts: 9,293
Kudos: 11,303
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anish123ster

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.

Yeah Anish,

The difference was of Most and All

Thanks,

Narenn
avatar
Richard0715
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Last visit: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 18
Kudos: 11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the conclusion states that human beings do not need to live on planets, then answer C makes the most sense because it mentions that ALL of human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
The correct answer should explain why Humans CANNOT leave planets. This answer C would weaken to conclusion. I think A would weaken as well but not as much as C. I missed the wording so I picked A at first but I think C is correct. What is the official right answer?
User avatar
HumptyDumpty
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Last visit: 07 Oct 2014
Posts: 142
Own Kudos:
552
 [1]
Given Kudos: 67
Location: Poland
Posts: 142
Kudos: 552
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anish123ster
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
Let's stick to the highlighted conclusion.
A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
Is acceleration the issue here?
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
Can the elements not be provided outside the Earth?
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
The gravity fields exist only on planets and human beings need gravity fields to live.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
Irrelevant.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.
Out of scope.
User avatar
mvictor
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Last visit: 14 Jul 2021
Posts: 2,118
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Products:
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
Posts: 2,118
Kudos: 1,276
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anish123ster
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

i easily reached the answer by POE.
1. strengthens the argument
2. looks like a strengthener so no.
3. aha, people can't live without gravity so definitely a weakener.
4. how long it will take is out of scope.
5. who will exploit the resources is out of scope.

C it is.
User avatar
abrakadabra21
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Last visit: 10 Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Posts: 243
Kudos: 224
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

NO habitable planet + Incapability to reach other planet => human will not colonized outer space
it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition.
Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets. Human can live on The asteroid belt.

Pre-thinking :-
1. Ok, water is available there. But what about capability to reach those asteroids.
2. What if there is some other conditions that are prohibiting us to live in asteroid.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.

B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.

I find A,B,E very close.
A => if Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells, then how will they reach to Asteriods. They need a mechanism. From the premises we don't know about this availability.

B=> if Minute amounts of trace elements are available only on Earth are required for human subsistence and not at asteriods, then our conclusion stands invalid. We only know about "abundant metals from which to build shelter" we don't know about trace elements.

C is of course correct.
User avatar
arvind910619
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Last visit: 18 Oct 2024
Posts: 814
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 755
Status:Learning
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
Posts: 814
Kudos: 615
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anish123ster
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.

Hi Experts ,
B sates that minute amounts of trace elements that are available only on earth are required fro human subsistence .
Does it not weaken the conclusion ?
If those elements are found only on the earth then it would not be possible to leave earth and live elsewhere.

Please explain what is wrong with my reasoning .
avatar
Prateek176
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2021
Posts: 172
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 87
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 4
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 172
Kudos: 92
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyMurray

Why cant B be a weakener. Doesn't B give a strong reason to live on planet?
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,472
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,472
Kudos: 5,641
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Prateek176
Why cant B be a weakener. Doesn't B give a strong reason to live on planet?
First of all, this question is pretty weak, as the passage never really makes clear that the idea that it is discussing is human's inhabiting asteroids.

Regarding your specific question, B is not a clear weakener, because conceivably the substances found only on Earth could be transported to the asteroids.

Contrast B with C, which makes clear that living on asteroids is essentially out of the question.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 22 Apr 2026
Posts: 5,632
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,632
Kudos: 33,433
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The author argues: "Forget planets! Asteroids have everything humans need - water, air, food, metals. Plus, low gravity makes resource extraction easy."

Conclusion: Humans don't need to live on planets; they can live on asteroids instead.

The Hidden Assumption:
The author lists what humans need (air, water, food, shelter) and shows asteroids provide these. But is this list complete? The author assumes these are the ONLY requirements for human survival.

Why (C) Devastates the Argument:
Choice (C) states: Humans cannot develop and function properly outside a strong gravity field.

Here's the irony:
- The passage brags about asteroids having weak gravity (makes extraction efficient!)
- But (C) reveals: Humans physiologically need strong gravity
- Therefore: The author's "benefit" becomes the fatal flaw

The very feature that makes asteroids attractive for resources (low gravity) makes them uninhabitable for humans.

Why Wrong Answers Fail:

(A) Can't withstand acceleration out of gravity wells
This is about leaving Earth, not about living on asteroids. A transportation problem doesn't mean you can't live there once you arrive.

(B) Trace elements only available on Earth
Tempting, but "minute amounts" could potentially be transported. Doesn't prove asteroid living is impossible.

(D)8-year round trip
A long journey ≠ impossible to live there. Historical colonists traveled for months; they still colonized successfully.

(E) Resources exploited by colonists' descendants
This actually supports the conclusion by suggesting colonization WILL happen!

Answer: C

anish123ster
Because there are no habitable planets other than Earth in our solar system and because it is unlikely we will ever have the capability to reach other systems, the conclusion that humankind will never colonize outer space seems justified. Consider, however, that every planet lies at the bottom of a deep gravity well. It not only takes energy to lift people and material out of such wells; it also takes considerable energy to lower them to the bottom in good working condition. Human beings need air, water, and food, but we need not continue to supply ourselves with these necessities under such inefficient conditions. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains billions of tons of the ices of water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, everything needed to provide food, air, and water, as well as abundant metals from which to build shelter. And relatively little energy would be required to exploit those vast resources because the asteroids, having little mass individually, do not lie at the bottoms of deep gravity wells. Therefore, human beings do not need to live on planets.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

A) Most human beings are physically unable to withstand acceleration out of gravity wells.
B) Minute amounts of trace elements available only on Earth are required for human subsistence.
C) Human beings are physiologically unable to develop and function properly outside the confines of a strong gravity field.
D) Given current technology, it would take more than eight years to complete a round trip from Earth to the asteroid belt and back.
E)The resources of asteroids are more likely to be exploited by the descendants of colonists from Earth.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
501 posts
358 posts