Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
09 Jun 2024, 09:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
80% (01:42) correct
20%
(01:51)
wrong
based on 144
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Geologist: A geological fault in the mountain under which the proposed nuclear waste storage facility would be buried could, after a few thousand years, cause the contents to seep out or water to seep in. Since nuclear waste remains dangerous for up to 25,000 years, such seepage would be disastrous. So, we should not place a nuclear waste storage facility under this mountain until scientists investigate whether this mountain has any geological faults.
Which one of the following arguments, if true, most strengthens the geologist’s argumentation?
(A) In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
(B) The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
(C) The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
(D) The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
(E) Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis
Which one of the following arguments, if true, most strengthens the geologist’s argumentation?
(A) In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
(B) The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
(C) The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
(D) The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
(E) Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis
14 Sep 2024, 21:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
We need to find an answer choice that directly supports the concern about potential geological faults in the mountain and the associated risks of nuclear waste seepage.
Premise: A geological fault in the mountain is possible. Fault => Seepage => Dangerous nuclear waste for up to 25,000 years/.
Conclusion: Don't store nuclear waste under this mountain until it is investigated for geological faults.
Goal: Find evidence that supports the geologist's caution about the potential fault in the mountain or the importance of conducting the investigation.
(A) In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
This is irrelevant to the geologist's argument. The potential risk of nuclear waste seepage is based on the danger it poses regardless of whether human civilization exists. This does not address the geologist's concern about the faults. If anything, it might weaken the argument as the non-existence of a human civilization may indicate we don't need to worry so much about the future dangers of nuclear waste. Eliminate (A).
(B) The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
This choice directly supports the geologist's argument. If the investigation can conclusively determine the presence of faults, it justifies the geologist's recommendation to investigate before deciding on the storage location. It strengthens the argument by showing the investigation's necessity and potential to provide critical information.
Keep (B) as it strengthens the argument.
(C) The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
This fact does not address the argument about the potential geological fault or the need for an investigation. Whether the facility was initially intended for nuclear waste storage is irrelevant to the argument's main concern about safety and the geological fault .Eliminate (C).
(D) The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
This weakens the argument rather than strengthens it. Mentioning the cost increase could be used as a counterargument against the investigation rather than a reason to support it. Eliminate (D).
(E) Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis.
This suggests a possible alternative but does not address the core issue of the geological fault's potential danger. The geologist's concern is about long-term safety, not temporary storage. Therefore, this option does not strengthen the argument that an investigation is needed. Eliminate (E).
Correct Answer is (B) The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults as it strengthens the argument by showing that the investigation would be decisive in identifying faults, which directly supports the geologist's call for caution and further study before proceeding with the nuclear waste storage.
Premise: A geological fault in the mountain is possible. Fault => Seepage => Dangerous nuclear waste for up to 25,000 years/.
Conclusion: Don't store nuclear waste under this mountain until it is investigated for geological faults.
Goal: Find evidence that supports the geologist's caution about the potential fault in the mountain or the importance of conducting the investigation.
(A) In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
This is irrelevant to the geologist's argument. The potential risk of nuclear waste seepage is based on the danger it poses regardless of whether human civilization exists. This does not address the geologist's concern about the faults. If anything, it might weaken the argument as the non-existence of a human civilization may indicate we don't need to worry so much about the future dangers of nuclear waste. Eliminate (A).
(B) The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
This choice directly supports the geologist's argument. If the investigation can conclusively determine the presence of faults, it justifies the geologist's recommendation to investigate before deciding on the storage location. It strengthens the argument by showing the investigation's necessity and potential to provide critical information.
Keep (B) as it strengthens the argument.
(C) The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
This fact does not address the argument about the potential geological fault or the need for an investigation. Whether the facility was initially intended for nuclear waste storage is irrelevant to the argument's main concern about safety and the geological fault .Eliminate (C).
(D) The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
This weakens the argument rather than strengthens it. Mentioning the cost increase could be used as a counterargument against the investigation rather than a reason to support it. Eliminate (D).
(E) Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis.
This suggests a possible alternative but does not address the core issue of the geological fault's potential danger. The geologist's concern is about long-term safety, not temporary storage. Therefore, this option does not strengthen the argument that an investigation is needed. Eliminate (E).
Correct Answer is (B) The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults as it strengthens the argument by showing that the investigation would be decisive in identifying faults, which directly supports the geologist's call for caution and further study before proceeding with the nuclear waste storage.
Moderators:
