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.
May 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Stuck at the same GMAT score? Plateaus aren’t about effort—they’re about approach. Watch Srikar’s journey to uncover what truly drives score improvement—and how you can apply it to break your plateau.
May 0912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
May 1506:00 PM PDT
-07:00 PM PDT
Start your free trial!
06 May 2026, 11:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
54% (02:04) correct
46%
(02:00)
wrong
based on 26
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Theories in certain scientific fields may be in flux today, but this unsettled state must be attributed to scientific progress, not to a lack of theoretical rigor. Several decades of scientific research have recently culminated in a wealth of new discoveries in these fields, and whenever many new facts come to light in a field, the ways in which that field organizes its knowledge inevitably need adjustment.
The argument proceeds by
(A) presenting the situation to be explained as part of a general pattern
(B) referring to the unacceptable consequences of adopting a particular explanation
(C) showing that two alternate explanations for a situation are equally probable
(D) citing a law of nature to explain a particular kind of change
(E) explaining why a situation came about by referring to the intended outcome of a course of action
The argument proceeds by
(A) presenting the situation to be explained as part of a general pattern
(B) referring to the unacceptable consequences of adopting a particular explanation
(C) showing that two alternate explanations for a situation are equally probable
(D) citing a law of nature to explain a particular kind of change
(E) explaining why a situation came about by referring to the intended outcome of a course of action
06 May 2026, 11:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think option A is the correct answer.
The argument starts with a specific situation:
“theories in certain scientific fields may be in flux today”
Then it explains that this situation is actually part of a broader pattern:
whenever many new facts are discovered,
the field naturally needs to reorganize its knowledge.
So the author takes one situation
(scientific theories being unsettled today)
and explains it through a general rule or pattern.
That is exactly what option A says.
---
Why the other options are wrong:
(B)
The argument never talks about bad consequences
of accepting another explanation.
So this is irrelevant.
(C)
The argument does not say two explanations
are equally probable.
In fact, it clearly prefers one explanation:
scientific progress.
(D)
The passage is not citing a “law of nature.”
It is just describing a general tendency
in scientific fields.
(E)
There is no discussion of intended outcomes
or planned actions.
The argument only explains why the situation exists.
---
So the structure is:
specific situation
→ explained using a broader general pattern
Answer = A
— Rajdeep
The argument starts with a specific situation:
“theories in certain scientific fields may be in flux today”
Then it explains that this situation is actually part of a broader pattern:
whenever many new facts are discovered,
the field naturally needs to reorganize its knowledge.
So the author takes one situation
(scientific theories being unsettled today)
and explains it through a general rule or pattern.
That is exactly what option A says.
---
Why the other options are wrong:
(B)
The argument never talks about bad consequences
of accepting another explanation.
So this is irrelevant.
(C)
The argument does not say two explanations
are equally probable.
In fact, it clearly prefers one explanation:
scientific progress.
(D)
The passage is not citing a “law of nature.”
It is just describing a general tendency
in scientific fields.
(E)
There is no discussion of intended outcomes
or planned actions.
The argument only explains why the situation exists.
---
So the structure is:
specific situation
→ explained using a broader general pattern
Answer = A
— Rajdeep
06 May 2026, 20:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Theories in certain scientific fields may be in flux today, but this unsettled state must be attributed to scientific progress, not to a lack of theoretical rigor. Several decades of scientific research have recently culminated in a wealth of new discoveries in these fields, and whenever many new facts come to light in a field, the ways in which that field organizes its knowledge inevitably need adjustment.
The argument proceeds by
The argument explains why theories in certain fields are unsettled. It says this is not due to weak theory, but due to scientific progress: many new discoveries require fields to reorganize their knowledge. So the argument explains a specific case by placing it under a broader rule.
(A) presenting the situation to be explained as part of a general pattern
Correct. The specific situation is that theories in some fields are currently in flux. The general pattern is that whenever many new facts appear, a field must adjust how it organizes knowledge.
(B) referring to the unacceptable consequences of adopting a particular explanation
Wrong. The argument rejects one explanation, but it does not do so by describing bad consequences of accepting it.
(C) showing that two alternate explanations for a situation are equally probable
Wrong. The argument says one explanation is correct and the other is not.
(D) citing a law of nature to explain a particular kind of change
Wrong. The argument gives a general claim about scientific fields, not a law of nature.
(E) explaining why a situation came about by referring to the intended outcome of a course of action
Wrong. The argument does not refer to anyone’s intention or planned outcome.
Answer: (A)
The argument proceeds by
The argument explains why theories in certain fields are unsettled. It says this is not due to weak theory, but due to scientific progress: many new discoveries require fields to reorganize their knowledge. So the argument explains a specific case by placing it under a broader rule.
(A) presenting the situation to be explained as part of a general pattern
Correct. The specific situation is that theories in some fields are currently in flux. The general pattern is that whenever many new facts appear, a field must adjust how it organizes knowledge.
(B) referring to the unacceptable consequences of adopting a particular explanation
Wrong. The argument rejects one explanation, but it does not do so by describing bad consequences of accepting it.
(C) showing that two alternate explanations for a situation are equally probable
Wrong. The argument says one explanation is correct and the other is not.
(D) citing a law of nature to explain a particular kind of change
Wrong. The argument gives a general claim about scientific fields, not a law of nature.
(E) explaining why a situation came about by referring to the intended outcome of a course of action
Wrong. The argument does not refer to anyone’s intention or planned outcome.
Answer: (A)
