If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water

Question

If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no freshwater environment on that planet as bodies of freshwater are produced by accumulation of natural precipitation on land. A planet without any freshwater environment is unlikely to harbour complex forms of life because they require a good amount of phosphorus to be present in absorbable form in their environment.

Which of the following can be inferred from the information provided above?

Which of the following can be inferred from the information provided above?

A. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, natural precipitation cannot occur on that planet.

B. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no dry land on that planet.

C. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be little phosphorus on that planet.

D. A planet without any freshwater environment is likely to have simple forms of life in abundance.

E. A planet without any freshwater environment is likely to contain no phosphorus at all.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Accepted Answer

A key aspect of correct answering Critical Reasoning questions is noticing details.

In this case, in order to eliminate C, you have to notice the detail that the passage does not say that phosphorus is not available on the planets described. It says that the life forms require "phosphorus to be present in  absorbable form ," a statement that does not indicate that phosphorus is not present, only that it is not present in absorbable form.

So, C, which says that "there can be little phosphorus," is not supported.

B, however, is supported, because the passage says,"If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no freshwater environment on that planet as bodies of freshwater are produced by accumulation  of natural precipitation on land ."

If the reason that there is no fresh water is that there has to be land in order for fresh water to be present, it seems that there is no dry land, as B says.

Granted, it may be possible that there is a tiny bit of dry land, but not enough land to support the accumulation of fresh water. At the same time, since none of the other choices follow from what the passage says, and B basically does, we can choose B.

Thakurdas · Answer

According to the argument given, (1) freshwater is produced when precipitation is accumulated on land and (2) if more than 10% of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no freshwater environment on that planet.

We can establish a connection between the two things mentioned above in only one way 》》If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, either no precipitation is possible, or no land (on which the precipitation is to accumulate) rises above water. Option B captures one of these two possibilities.

Posted from my mobile device

Thakurdas · Answer

Option C is meant to mislead you through the mention of phosphorus. The problem mentioned in the argument is not the absence of phosphorus in general but the absence of phosphorus in absorbable form.

Posted from my mobile device

Pranithare · Answer

i marked my answer as c, i was able to easily eliminate D,E and A but not sure how can i arrive at b ? Please explain

gaurav2m · Answer

Please help me to understand why choice A is wrong. According to my understanding, if natural precipitation does not occur then there is no dry land which is same as mentioned in the option B.
Then y we are choosing option B instead of A

Posted from my mobile device

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Correctly answering this CR question requires noticing some key details. One such detail appears in the first sentence of the passage.

Here is that sentence:

If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no freshwater environment on that planet as bodies of freshwater are produced by accumulation of natural precipitation on land.

Does that sentence say or imply that, if 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there will be no precipitation?

No.

It implies that, if 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there will be  no accumulation of precipitation on land . There could still be precipitation on that planet.

Here's what (A) says:

A. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, natural precipitation cannot occur on that planet.

(A) is a classic CR trap answer, because, although it is not supported by what the passage says, since it uses words that the passage uses, it may seem to match what the passage says.

GMAT CR is not a word matching game. To get CR questions correct consistently, you have to be very careful and use tight logic.

gaurav2m · Answer

Rraagarwal · Answer

Why not d as fresh water required for comple life forms and not for simple life form

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

Let us see what the stimulus says about this.

"A planet without any freshwater environment is unlikely to harbour complex forms of life because they require a good amount of phosphorus to be present in absorbable form in their environment."

There is nothing in the stimulus about what is required for simple forms of life. We only know that complex life forms require fresh water (due to phosphorous). It may be that simple life forms require some other conditions which may not be satisfied in the absence of fresh water environment either.

As such, if we ask whether the simple life forms can exist in the absence of freshwater environment, the answer only comes up to be "maybe". We do not get 100% certainty about option (D) from the stimulus, and hence it cannot be a valid inference from the facts given.

Hope this helps.

sarthakk07 · Answer

Can any debrief me the meaning of first sentence after the comma. I am getting confused related to last part.

I was easily able to eliminate C, D and E options but why the answers is B lies in first sentence that I am not able to understand

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Sarthak

The first sentence of the passage states: "If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no freshwater environment on that planet as bodies of freshwater are produced by accumulation of natural precipitation on land."

We should look at this in three parts - the part before the comma, the conclusion after the comma (please note this may or may not be the final conclusion of the passage) and the premise on which that conclusion is based.

The portion before the comma is very simple, it provides a condition, say, X: " If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water "

The first portion after the comma is the conclusion, which is also the effect, say, Y, of the above condition: " there can be no freshwater environment on that planet "

The last portion after the comma provides the premise, or reason (say, Z), for the conclusion or effect to be true: " bodies of freshwater are produced by accumulation of natural precipitation on land "

So the structure is:  If X, then Y because Z.

I hope this helps.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

A. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, natural precipitation cannot occur on that planet.
Natural preciptation might occur however the accumlation of precipitation might not occur therefore out

B. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no dry land on that planet. 
This is true since if everything is water there definitely exista a possibility of having all the land covered by water

C. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be little phosphorus on that planet.
There can be lot of phosphorous however they might not be in absorbable form therefore out

D. A planet without any freshwater environment is likely to have simple forms of life in abundance.
There is a possibility of existence no life form at all therefore out

E. A planet without any freshwater environment is likely to contain no phosphorus at all.
Similar reasoning as C

Therefore IMO B

GMATcracker101 · Answer

A. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, natural precipitation cannot occur on that planet.  INCORRECT. This seems like an important statement but this is incorrect as the it is stated that - "of natural precipitation on land", there may be natural precipitation but for freshwater there was to be natural precipitation on land.

B. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no dry land on that planet.  CORRECT. From Process of Elimination, we get this one, as freshwater has to be accumulated on land if there is no land there is no place for it to accumulate. If the planet does not accumulate freshwater environment on land, then it is unlikely to harbour any complex life forms.

C. If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be little phosphorus on that planet.  INCORRECT. Nothing is said about the presence of phosphorus on the planet, the only information we have is that complex life forms require a good amount of phosphorus.

D. A planet without any freshwater environment is likely to have simple forms of life in abundance.  INCORRECT. Nothing in the statement suggests this.

E. A planet without any freshwater environment is likely to contain no phosphorus at all.  INCORRECT. Nothing in the statement suggests this.

Anandanwar · Answer

Hello,

Argument says: "If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water, there can be no freshwater environment on that planet as bodies of freshwater are produced by accumulation of natural precipitation on land."
This means if water is >= 10%, then there is no "natural precipitation on land".
Now this can happen if 
1.there is no natural precipitation.
2.there is no dry land
3.there is dry land but no precipitation on that land.
etc etc.

Could someone point to the logical error in the above reasoning?
How do we infer B?

Regards,
Ankit

guddo · Answer

I’d say there is  no real logical error in your objection . The only step I would change is this:

That does not strictly follow either. The passage tells us only that there is no freshwater environment.

For (B) to follow, we have to read the author’s explanation as implying that the reason freshwater cannot form is the absence of sufficient exposed land on which precipitation could accumulate. That is clearly the  intended  connection.

But strictly speaking, as you point out, other possibilities are not ruled out. There could be land but no precipitation, or some land but not enough for freshwater bodies to form. So  (B) is the best intended answer, but it is not a completely airtight inference from the wording given .

KarishmaB · Answer

If 10% of total mass of a planet is water, that is a huge proportion and would happen only if there are global deep oceans covering the entire planet. But from the given data, this is not obvious and hence most people struggle to infer it. That is why the question is marked 805+. 
You can safely ignore the question.

egmat · Answer

Hi Anandanwar,

Your list of scenarios is sharp, and you've spotted the real hinge of this question. The fix is one word in the stimulus that turns "could be several causes" into "only one cause survives."

Look at the exact claim:  "there  can be no  freshwater environment on that planet."  That's not "there happens to be no freshwater" - it's a  guarantee : freshwater is  impossible  on any planet with ≥ 10%  water. Now test your three scenarios against that guarantee:

No precipitation at all  - the argument gives us no reason to believe high water mass stops rain. If anything, more water suggests more precipitation. So we can't infer this, and it doesn't guarantee anything.

Land exists but no precipitation falls on it  - this can't be a  guarantee  either. If there's land, precipitation  could  fall on it and produce freshwater. Nothing locks that out.

No dry land  - this is the only one that makes freshwater  impossible no matter what precipitation does . With no land, there's nowhere for precipitation to accumulate, so freshwater can never form - full stop.

That's the logical error in your reasoning: scenarios  1  and  3  leave the door open for freshwater to still appear, so they can't produce the  guaranteed  absence the stimulus states. Only  B  - no dry land - forces the guarantee. That's also why  A  fails: it claims precipitation itself can't occur, which the argument never supports.

Turn one knob to feel it:  A garden needs both soil and rain to grow flowers. Suppose we're told "this place  can grow no flowers ."

Can you infer "it never rains here"? No - rain could come any day.

Can you infer "there's no soil here"? Yes - without soil, no amount of rain will ever grow a flower.

Same move: soil = land, rain = precipitation. The  guarantee  points straight at the fixed missing ingredient, not the variable one. That's why  B  is the only safe inference.

Answer: B

If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water

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

If 10% or more of a planet's total mass is water

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