Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of

Question

Anne : Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.

Sue : Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.

Sue challenges Anne’s reasoning by

A. pointing out that Anne’s use of the term “observed” is excessively vague
B. drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
C. presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne’s evidence
D. offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites
E. undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion

NaeemHasan · Answer

Hi,
What´s the problem with C? can anyone explain?

goforgmat · Answer

Its not evidence that is citing. she just gives an explanation why the flares were observed in case of the Halley's comet.

sisirkant · Answer

Hello.. can someone please explain why E is wrong. Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

rbaldawa · Answer

E. undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion

Anne's conclusion -> No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before.
Sue's objects the conclusion -> There might be other comets with the same flame but not being observed that closely.

Hence they do no agree with the conclusion.

Lucy Phuong · Answer

Here's just my thought:

E. undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion

I think the conclusion of this question is "such a flare must be highly unusual". Anne argues that unlike other comets, Halley’s Comet "flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope".

But Sue does not agree with Anna on the reason why this flare was observed. According to Sue, it is careful tracking from observatory, rather than its brightness, that makes the flare to be seen. By refuting the reason proposed by Anne, Sue implicitly concludes that the flare is not that highly unusual. In another word, Sue does not agree with Anne's conclusion.
That's why (E) is incorrect.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer choice is (D).

The arguments of Anne and Sue can be analyzed as follows: Anne’s Argument: Premise: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. Premise: No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before. Conclusion: Such a flare must be highly unusual. Sue’s Argument: Premise: Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. Premise: This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully. Conclusion:   Nonsense. As is often the case with two-speaker stimuli, the speakers disagree. In this case, Anne uses causal reasoning to indicate that the cause of the sighting is unusual activity with Halley’s comet: FU = the flare is highly unusual, NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun, FUNCO. Sue counters by citing an alternate cause: no one has been looking for such a flare. NO = no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun, NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun, NO NCO.

The problem now becomes an exercise in figuring out how the test makers will describe the alternative cause cited by Sue.

Answer choice (A): This answer quickly fails the Fact Test. Sue does not comment on use of the term “observed” (other than to explain why the flare was observed).

Answer choice (B): Although Sue cites an explanation that is inconsistent with Anne’s claim, she does not point out an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims.

Answer choice (C): Remember, evidence is the same as premises. Does Sue contradict Anne’s premises? No, she only contradicts her conclusion. Do not be drawn in by the word “nonsense.” That word is used to attack the conclusion, not the premises of the argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer.  In this answer, the alternate cause is described as an “alternative explanation.” In most cases, a causal counterargument can be described as offering an alternative explanation.

Answer choice (E): This is a Reverse Answer. The answer appears as follows: “undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion” If the answer choice was reversed in the following manner, it would be correct: “undermining her   conclusion while agreeing with some of Anne’s evidence ” The evidence she agrees with is the first sentence of Anne’s argument (the premise in the second sentence is not directly addressed).

Best06 · Answer

Can someone explain how to tackle this type of question??

guddo · Answer

Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.

Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.

Sue challenges Anne’s reasoning by

A. pointing out that Anne’s use of the term “observed” is excessively vague
B. drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
C. presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne’s evidence
D. offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites
E. undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion

Anne claims that because no comet has been observed flaring so far from the Sun before, such a flare must be highly unusual. Sue counters by explaining that the lack of past observations is due to lack of careful observation at such distances, not because the event is rare. She offers a different reason (careful tracking now vs. no tracking before) to explain the same evidence (the flare being seen now). This is an alternative explanation that undercuts Anne’s inference.

The other choices do not fit:

A: Sue does not attack the term “observed” as vague.

B: There is no inconsistency between Anne’s claims.

C: Sue presents no new evidence contradicting Anne’s evidence.

E: Sue does not agree with Anne’s conclusion; she rejects it.

Thus, Sue’s method is offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites.

Answer: D

guddo · Answer

For "challenge the reasoning" questions such as this one:

Identify the core argument . So, find the conclusion and the evidence used.  
  Locate the flaw or leap in logic . Ask: What does the first speaker assume?  
  See how the second speaker responds . Usually they don’t provide new evidence, but show why the evidence doesn’t guarantee the conclusion.

In this question, Anne assumes that because something wasn’t  observed , it isn’t  common . Sue points out that maybe no one was looking carefully before, that’s an  alternative explanation  for the same observation, weakening the leap from “not observed” to “unusual.”

So, focus on  how the response attacks the reasoning , not the conclusion itself. Often it’s by exposing a hidden assumption or offering another way the evidence could arise.

miag · Answer

Hi,

I feel like  guddo  's is quite good already. But adding on:

Identify the conclusion of the first speaker, and the reasoning he/she is using to make that claim. In this case, it is:
Conclusion: Flare is highly unusual
Premise: No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before

Then look at what is the second speaker trying to do to attack the first speaker's argument. For e.g. are they disagreeing with the conclusion, are they questioning the data validity, are they saying there is another reason which is not the one that the first speaker stated, etc. (there is generally a list of these buckets you can take note of to identify this)

Convincingly reject options based on solid grounds for e.g. A) is out immediately, there is no attack on how the word "observed" has been advised. This will get you to the right answer.

Hope this helps!

Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part 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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part 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