Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision

Question

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.

C. The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

Similar question from GMATPrep:  LINK

gmatexam439 · Accepted Answer

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim. - The author doesn't want to prove the first claim correct.

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim. - The author doesn't want to prove the first claim correct.

C. The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.  -Correct. Both are just fact sets.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion. - Second is not the conclusion

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer. - Second statement is not a negative statement

Prasannathawait · Answer

Good question.
Can be solved by using POE strategy.
We can eliminate all but C.

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.---- First is not a claim

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.---- First is not a claim

C. The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.---- Cannot eliminate

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.--- 2nd is not the conclusion

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer. -  2nd is not against the explanation

LoneSurvivor · Answer

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

1) Author is not trying to explain that or provide reason for the fact that  After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur , Because its a fact.
2) BF2 is not acknowledging a consideration that weigh against the truth of the Claim rather it is supporting the Conclusion of the argument.

1) Same mistake as explained in A
2) BF2 is supporting the conclusion not the Claim

Perfect if we pay close attention we will see that both considerations are actually supporting the conclusion which is i t is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

1) BF1 is supporting the Conclusion 
2) BF2 is not teh conclusion

1) First part is correct as author is trying to explain 
2) BF2 is not weighing against rather it is supporting the conclusion.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Analysis: Conclusion is: it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up – giving indication of the size of the fragments! 1st part is a consideration that the author is using to prove something so it is either C or D. 2nd part is definitely not a conclusion.  Hence, C is better.

rsrighosh · Answer

in option C what do we mean by "consideration"? Isn't the 1st and 2nd old statements are facts or evidences?

GMATNinja  can u please give your insight?

GMATNinja · Answer

It's best not to get too attached to particular words before you see the answer choices. I agree that "evidence" would be a good word to describe the function of the two boldface pieces, but that doesn't mean that other words can't work just as well.

A "consideration" is just something you take into account when forming an opinion. So, a "consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument" is just a factor that supports the conclusion. In other words, "consideration" is basically a synonym for "evidence" in this particular context.

Of course, the best way to answer any critical reasoning question is to use process of elimination, and go with the answer choice that you can't eliminate. It's not a huge problem to be squeamish about the word "consideration" in (C), as long as you can confidently eliminate the other options.

I hope that helps!

egmat · Answer

SOLUTION

Passage Analysis

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. 
 • A fact, event, observation, situation, circumstance. 
Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.
 • A general fact. A method. 
 After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. 
 • BF1- An observation, a fact. 
 The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. 
 • A belief, a prediction, an opinion. 
Since   sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,  
 • BF2- An expectation, claim, prediction. 
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up
 • Main conclusion

Question stem Analysis

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
 This is a typical boldface question in which one should identify the roles of the boldfaced statements.

Prethinking

BF1 
An observation, a fact.
Relation with main conclusion - Supporting the Main conclusion

BF2 
An expectation, claim, prediction 
Relation with main conclusion - Supporting the Main conclusion

Hence, both BF1 and BF2 are reasonings/considerations used to support the main conclusion

Option Analysis

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
 The first is not a claim, it is an observation and a fact. The second does not oppose the claim. Hence this option is incorrect. (BF1 incorrect, BF2 incorrect)

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
 The first, as already mentioned is not a claim. The second provides evidence for the main conclusion, not BF1. Hence this option is also incorrect. (BF1 incorrect, BF2 incorrect)

C.  The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument. 
It is not incorrect to call BF1 and BF2 considerations. Both support the main conclusion. Hence this option is correct.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
 The first does providence evidence in support of the conclusion. The second is not the conclusion but another evidence. Hence this option is incorrect. (BF1 correct, BF2 incorrect)

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.
 It is not incorrect to call the first one a circumstance. The astronomers are seeking to provide an explanation for the same. But the second boldface does not acknowledge a consideration against the given explanation, it only supports the given explanation. Hence this option is incorrect. (BF1 correct, BF2 incorrect)

The correct answer is C.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
Astronemer is just explaining a possibility and not seeking to prove anything

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.
Similar reasoning as A

C. The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
This is exactly the intended meaning

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.
The second also lends support and not the conclusion by itself

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.
Both the bold-face are in the same line of argument and not in the opoosite ends

Therefore IMO C

Raman109 · Answer

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. - Fact 
Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. - Opinion. It's in the same direction as the main conclusion. 
After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. - Fact 
The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. - belief of astronomers/opinion 
Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, - Premise 
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up. - main conclusion

In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true (the first is not a claim. It's just a fact); the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim. (BF1 and BF2 go in the same direction). Weigh against is wrong.

B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true (the first is not a claim. It's just a fact); the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim. (It is a premise that supports the main conclusion and not the BF1 fact)

C. The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.- ok

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument (ok); the second is that conclusion (No. It is a premise)

E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation (ok); the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer. (BF1 and BF2 go in the same direction). Weigh against is wrong.

KarishmaB · Answer

Context: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. Premise: After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer Conclusion/Claim: Some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up. We have broken down the argument into its components as we have been doing for all questions till now. Now we go on to the options. (A) The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim. Not correct. Both boldface statements are premises for the conclusion/claim. (B) The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim. Not correct. Both boldface statements are premises for the conclusion/claim. (C) The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument. Correct. Both are boldface statements are considerations in support of the conclusion. (D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion. The second boldface is not the conclusion. It is a premise. (E) The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer. The first boldface is not a circumstance that the astronomer seeks to explain. It is a premise. The second does not weigh against the explanation provided by the astronomer. It is the explanation provided by the astronomer. Answer (C) Discussion on Boldface Questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY

Gemmie · Answer

1.  First boldface portion:  " The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur." 
This is a piece of evidence or information about the composition of the comet fragments.

2. Second boldface portion:   "Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up." 
This provides a reasoning process leading to the conclusion that some fragments were large enough to penetrate Jupiter's outer atmosphere.

The conclusion of the argument is that  "it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up."

A.  The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim. 
Incorrect, because the second statement does not weigh against the first.

B.  The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim. 
Incorrect, because the first is not the main claim being argued for.

C.  The first and the second are each consideration advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.  
This fits, as the first is an observation about the sulfur content (or lack thereof) in the fragments, and the second builds on this to support the idea that fragments were large enough to penetrate the outer atmosphere.

D.  The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion. 
Incorrect, as the second statement is part of the reasoning leading to the conclusion rather than the conclusion itself.

E.  The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer. 
Incorrect, because the second does not weigh against the first.

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.

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision

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

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision

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