It takes the heat of large stars or supernovae to cause the fusion of

Question

It takes the heat of large stars or supernovae to cause the fusion of magnesium with hydrogen, creating a chemically stable aluminum. Since aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on Earth, it can be inferred that, at least at some point, the temperature inside or outside Earth was comparable to that on large stars or supernovae.

Which of the following, if true, causes most damage to the conclusion of the argument above?

(A) Creation of stable aluminum requires distinct pressure conditions not typical of contemporary Earth.

(B) Some of the aluminum found on Earth was brought here with asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae.

(C) Most aluminum on Earth comes in oxides, and native aluminum can be found only in low oxygen environments.

(D) Aluminum found on Earth has several vacant electrons that have to be artificially removed in order for it to become chemically stable.

(E) Magnesium itself can only be formed under strictly defined conditions.

aks456 · Answer

IMO (D)
(A)Creation of stable aluminum requires distinct pressure conditions not typical of contemporary Earth. Out of scope

(B)Some of the aluminum found on Earth was brought here with asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae.

(C)Most aluminum on Earth comes in oxides, and native aluminum can be found only in low oxygen environments.-Out of scope

(D)Aluminum found on Earth has several vacant electrons that have to be artificially removed in order for it to become chemically stable.

(E)Magnesium itself can only be formed under strictly defined conditions.- Out of scope

Down to (B) and (D)
"Since aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on Earth"-Even if some of the aluminium was bought by asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae- what about the major part of it.??

Now analyzing (D)
we have to weaken that temperature on earth was almost the same as that of stars or supernova...means if thats the case the aluminium found on Earth should not be chemically stable.. (D) clearly says that...

ankur1901 · Answer

What is OA? Confused between C and D..will go with C though.

Conclusion : the temperature inside or outside Earth was comparable to that on large stars or supernovae

(A)Creation of stable aluminum requires distinct pressure conditions not typical of contemporary Earth.
 Incorrect..It talks about contemporary earth, so still the temperature could have been like star in the past

(B)Some of the aluminum found on Earth was brought here with asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae.
 this give reason only for 'some' of AL, we are concerned for large quantities of AL.

(C)Most aluminum on Earth comes in oxides, and native aluminum can be found only in low oxygen environments.
 since native AL can be found only in low O2 env and it also contain O2..there is high chance that it was imported or there is some other process which may not require high temp..still not 100% sure

(D)Aluminum found on Earth has several vacant electrons that have to be artificially removed in order for it to become chemically stable.
 Here there is an additional process explained for AL to be chemically stable which may require intense heat. this infact supports the conclusion

(E)Magnesium itself can only be formed under strictly defined conditions.
 Out of scope. We have no idea or concern on how Mg is formed.

pqhai · Answer

This question requires you to read it carefully.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS: 
 
Fact: The heat of large stars or supernovae ==> the fusion of magnesium with hydrogen ==> creating a chemically stable aluminum.  KEY  word:  "STABLE aluminum".   Not aluminum in general. 
Fact: Aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on Earth, 
Conclusion: At least at some point, the temperature inside or outside Earth was comparable to that on large stars or supernovae.

Question: Which of the following, if true, causes most damage to the conclusion of the argument above?

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

(A)Creation of stable aluminum requires distinct pressure conditions not typical of contemporary Earth.
  Wrong.   "not typical of contemporary Earth" does not mean the creating of stable aluminum did not happen in the past.

(B)Some of the aluminum found on Earth was brought here with asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae.
  Wrong.   "Some" does not mean "all". Let say 1/2 of the aluminum was brought to the Earth by asteroid, other 1/2 of aluminum created by temperature inside or outside Earth ==> The conclusion is true. 
Other reason to eliminate: B only talks about "aluminum", not "STABLE aluminum" ==> We can't say anything about the creating of stable aluminum on Earth.

(C)Most aluminum on Earth comes in oxides, and native aluminum can be found only in low oxygen environments.
  Wrong.   Out of scope.

(D)Aluminum found on Earth has several vacant electrons that have to be artificially removed in order for it to become chemically stable.
  Correct.   D shows that STABLE aluminum can be created artificially on Earth, not by temperature inside or outside Earth.

(E)Magnesium itself can only be formed under strictly defined conditions.
  Wrong.   E supports the conclusion a bit.

Hope it helps.

Carcass · Answer

simply because the gist of the argument says this: aluminum is the result of fusion at certain point on a time line and this process is equal to that on other planets
this is false: to have aluminium we have to do something of artificial in a siderurgic plant

C says: where the aluminum WHERE is founded............is completely unrelated to weaken the conclusion

hope this shelps you

by the way: do you agree that it is a 700 level question ?? please let me know

Carcass · Answer

infact it was a rethoric question to you but also to other students

Carcass · Answer

and easiest question ?' what is your rate ??

Carcass · Answer

Well on an average 4/5 mostly 5/5. But the problem lies with the 700 level questions.

well i do not see the problem, to some extent.

I mean: people think that this is just a test about how many difficult questions i pick right ?? yeah, but this is wrong

The test is really complex. The most part of the students not even see that level because a bunch of variables come into the picture : stress, timing, even a word that is not understood and you have difficulties with that question, even if that question is not a 700 level.

The key is to pick right each low middle and middle upper level. in that way you are in an upper level stage that if you pick a 700 level question this one hurts you less than a 500 level. this is the game.

Back to your specific question I would say: read verey super carefully the question, trying to make it own as you are in that scenario and from here move further through the answer choices. Understanding the whole picture and not to use only your sets of strategy: for weaken question i have to weaken only the conclusion: this is fasle. understanding the whole scenario is the first rule to follow.

hope this helps you

Carcass · Answer

the test works more or less like this:

questions one through six or so are of an increasing level

7 ---> 10 are difficult. this because the test tries to set a plateau for each student.

after this the test goes up and down from this plateau; it depends on how you respond to those questions.

around 25 or so (more or less) there is the confirmation stage: where your score is confirmed by the tes itself.

as you can see whwnever you reach THAT plateau after the 10th question if you are in an upper level zone even with question picked wrong you have that score.

coverserly: if you are not able to reach that plateau no matter what you do well AFTER, your score is already that. period.

I would be worried about more to have a strong plateau instead to pick a 700 level right and all the rest wrong; even becasue if you do not reach that upper level stage you never see a 700 level.

All that doesn't mean that 700 level question are not important, this is not true at all. only that for how the test works they are a chimera if you do not do well BEFORE.

pramendrapandeya · Answer

Indeed a good question, key to solve this question is "STABLE aluminum" -D says earth does not have stable aluminium it has to modify etc............so it says stable aluminium was never exist in earth --->i.e. earth will not be having similar environment of heat of large stars or supernovae

Hope that helps

ssriva2 · Answer

D is answer. B is tempting but in B if some aluminum was brought by asteroids then what about the left aluminum. :-D

mvictor · Answer

(A)Creation of stable aluminum requires distinct pressure conditions not typical of contemporary Earth. - irrelevant

(B)Some of the aluminum found on Earth was brought here with asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae. - some - but what about the other part? where did it come from? out.

(C)Most aluminum on Earth comes in oxides, and native aluminum can be found only in low oxygen environments.
still doesn't explain where it came from. is oxides different from native aluminium? since additional questions need to be answered, it can't be a correct answer.

(D)Aluminum found on Earth has several vacant electrons that have to be artificially removed in order for it to become chemically stable.
ok, now this is interesting. this one says that aluminium on earth has different structure than the aluminium formed in supernova. thus, the conclusion no longer stands.

(E)Magnesium itself can only be formed under strictly defined conditions. - irrelevant

guialain · Answer

i like this question.
Particular because B creates confusion.
Advised test takers can eliminate B beacuse of " Some  alu was brought......" in the answer choice and "at least at some point....." in the question stem

chesstitans · Answer

this is a common but tricky pattern
A (heat)-> B (stable alumnium) 
argument: B -> A 
to weaken, B (on Earth) has nothing to with A

rmahe11 · Answer

How is C out of scope , Most means more than 50 percent. Can you explain the logic ? When we sat several vacant electrons . If there are 1000 electrons does several means more than 500 or less than 500 ? Please explain

7833Bhanu · Answer

Hey Folks I can see that there is some confusion in between option Choice B and D.
Just before I proceed with the solution let's create a map for the passage
Conclusion :- Temp. @earth= Temp of supernova or star.
Evidence :- To have  chemically stable   aluminum we need heat of a star or supernova. 
Now if I have to weaken it I might have to introduce certain other way that can produce chemically stable Aluminum

Now when I see option B forget about the aluminum brought by Asteroids, the basic question is that " Was this aluminum chemically stable". And answer is No to that
Where as in option choice D we can easily see that " Chemically stable aluminum is made by some chemical process" Thus being in alignment withe the passage

Takeaways :- When mapping always have a close look at certain keywords "chemically stable aluminum"

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.

It takes the heat of large stars or supernovae to cause the fusion of

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

It takes the heat of large stars or supernovae to cause the fusion of

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