Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon-were

Question

Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon-were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occuring fullerenes were formed.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
(D) The naturally occuring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Hi adg142000

I’m glad to help.

This question uses a  very common flaw of reasoning: 
Fact: X leads to A
Fact: Y leads to A 
Conclusion: X = Y. 
 This is wrong. Same ending does not mean same beginning.

Back to the question.

Fact:  fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory
 Fact:  fullerenes also have been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite.
 Fact:  laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure
 Conclusion:  We could know about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.

Assumption:   the previous structure  of fullereness formed in lab and that of fullererness formed in nature  is the same .

What if scientists synthesize fullerness from substance X. But in nature fullerness was actually formed from substance Y  ==> We cannot say the condition of the Earth’s crust at the time fullerness naturally formed is the same as the condition of lab at the time fullerness synthesized artificially.

What D says:

D. The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure 
D clearly says:  we don't know what  previous structure  of fullererness formed naturally . 
 For example:  The flow is: carbon 12 ==> carbon 14 ==> fullererness. Assume the lab synthesizes fullererness from carbon 12, but in nature, fullererness was formed from carbon 14 ==> cannot say the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed is the same as the condition in lab.

Hence, D weakens the conclusion and is correct.

Hope it helps.

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

Here's an analogous argument:

Orange juice was first discovered in my kitchen, but orange juice has since been discovered seeping out of an orange that had fallen out of a tree. Since orange juice made in the kitchen requires Tang juice crystals and cold water, this discovery should give orange farmers a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the orchard when the naturally-occurring orange juice was formed.

The suggestion here is that, when the naturally-occurring orange juice was created (after the orange fell off the tree), the conditions in the orchard might have been similar to the conditions in my kitchen (cold water and the availability of Tang).
This, of course, is false, since there are at least TWO DIFFERENT ways in which orange juice is created.

The answer choice that best weakens the argument is D. It suggests that the STRUCTURE of naturally occurring fullerenes is DIFFERENT from the STRUCTURE of laboratory-created fullerenes.
Answer choice D is the same as saying "the kitchen orange juice (Tang) is structurally different from naturally occurring orange juice"
If the structures are different, it's quite possible that there are differences in the way each type of OJ is created.

A student asked me why answer choice B is not correct.

Answer choice B is analogous to saying that "some orange juice has been found in outer space"
This has no bearing on whether the "discovery" of OJ in my kitchen will help determine the state of the orchard when the naturally-occurring orange juice was formed.

Cheers, 
Brent

x2suresh · Answer

premise: 
Although fullerenes-spherical molecules made entirely of carbon-were first found in the laboratory

Premise: fullerenes-spherical molecules made entirely of carbon- have since been found in nature, formed fissures of rare material shungite.

Premise : Laborate synthesis of fullerenes requires distictive conditins of temperature and pressure.

Conclusion:
Discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occuring fullerenes were formed.

A) Not weakening the argument. one way it is supporting the argument. 
B) Not relevant (Out of scope). This information is not useful in weaking argument. What even if fullerenes found in outerspace?
 Is this effect conclusion??? 
C ) Not weakening. 
E) Strenghten

D). naturally occurent fullerenes are previsously in unknown crystalline structure.
 Laboratory fullurenes are in spherical structure.
 Both have different strucutre--> conditions of temp and pressure require will be different for these two forms.
 
 So It undermines argument.

Go with D.

KarishmaB · Answer

Fullerenes are made in the lab under certain temp & pressure conditions (i.e to make them, we need certain conditions say temp of 500 degrees C and pressure of 100 pascal). 
Now fullerenes have been discovered naturally. So if we can find the time when these fullerenes were formed (say 2 million years ago), we can say something about the temp and pressure of Earth's crust at that place where fullerenes are found (that 2 million years ago, at the fissures, the temp was probably 500 degrees C and pressure was 100 pascal. This gives us some information about the temp and pressure of Earth's crust). 
That is what the argument is saying. That we have better data available to evaluate hypotheses about the Earth's crust at that time.

We need to weaken this conclusion.

(A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
Irrelevant how it was found. They have found it.

(B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
Irrelevant. The same conditions could have prevailed on the meteorite too. Doesn't weaken our argument.

(C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
This doesn't weaken our argument. The temp and pressure required in the lab can give us clues about Earth's crust.

(D) The naturally occuring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
Correct. This weakens our argument. The structure of the lab fullerenes is different from the structure of the natural fullerenes. The conditions required to make the two types of fullerenes could be very very different then. So lab fullerene conditions are unlikely to help us figure out condition of Earth's crust. For example, both graphite & diamond are made from carbon. But their structures are different. Very diff conditions lead tot he formation of one or the other.

(E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions

Irrelevant

Answer (D)

bigtreezl · Answer

B

The argument says that fullerenes are made under special conditions in the lab, so the fullerenes in nature should provide clues about the conditions when the earths crust was formed. B gives an alternative and suggests that fullerenes could have come from outter space.

Hades · Answer

Indeed tough.

My answer is  D .

The argument is saying since the fullerenes are the same, they must have been made the same way.
And we know how to make them in the laboratory, so that's how they were made in nature.

D weakens this considerably by saying they're not the same.

Here's why the other answer choices are wrong.

A) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
  Fantastic. Who cares.  
B) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
 This weakens it a bit. But D does much more so. It says 'some fullerenes', which isn't that strong of a statement. Perhaps the fullerenes were made in space, again a lot of 'what ifs'... .
C) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
 Fantastic. Who cares .
D) The naturally occuring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
 Correct .
E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions 
 Fantastic. Again who cares.

Dreaming · Answer

Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure,  this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypothesis about the state of the Earth's crust  ( CONCLUSION )at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.

any statemet that proves that the temperature and pressure conditions MIGHT NOT BE SAME for the naturally occurng and lab versions of fullerene will be the correct answer.

a) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation so? at the end it was confirmed tht it was fullerene. doesnt affect conclusion 
b) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.  The qs is about finding conditions on eart's crust, not metiorites. It specifically mentioned tht the fullerens were FORMED on the mineral rocks 
c) The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.  doesnt make any difference to the conclusion 
d) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure  CORRECT  THE CRYSTALLINE STRUCTURES ARE DIFFERENT...THEREFOR THE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT
e) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
.  doesnt make any difference to the conclusion

Truthfully speaking...I dont think its a fair qs..... I had the preknowledge that crystal structure formation is directly responsible on the temp/pressure conditions...and different conditions  may  result in different structures. A person not knowing this might have difficulty in solving this problem.

kraizada84 · Answer

Its D as the structure present in lab is different from the previous one and hence the conclusion is weakened

shikhar · Answer

what does the word previously means here ??
I thought it meant that the structure was not known earlier but now its known...
if i remove previously form option D it is clearly the answer.

Please clarify ...

kraizada84 · Answer

Basically the thing is :
F found in lab first then in nature, as they can be synthesized in lab argument concludes that okay it is possible to know something about the earth's state when these naturally occurring F were found. But what about if geologists dont know there structure prior to the point when discovery was made then its useless having F in lab. Because its no concrete source to make the conclusion.

Previously Unknown means before the discovery nothing about the structure is known. Hence if nothing is known till that point we cant say anything regarding the conclusion and hence conclusion stands is weakened.

Hope this helps..!!

paragkan · Answer

Why can't the answer be B? The very fact that a meteorite also contained F implies that a similar meteorite could have collided with Earth and caused F to be inducted into Earth's crust artificially. So, studying this might not necessarily tell anything about Earth !!!

anordinaryguy · Answer

I can't understand either of options (except C, but that with a long shot) weakening the conclusion.

Argument says : Because F could be formed in Lab in distinctive conditions (of temperature and pressure), We should be able to evaluate earth crust's conditions as well at the time of these Fs formed naturally. So, It's essentially assuming F can be formed in a specific set of conditions.

Let's evaluate Options : 
A. Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation
=> Not Related - No Impact

B. Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
=> Even if some were found in a small meteorite, it doesn't impact the argument. Because that small meteorite may also have similar conditions as Lab had when F were formed.

C. The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
=> This makes a little sense for me because it gives an alternative reason to believe why F formed naturally had something special (large amount of carbon) which may not be there in the lab. So we might be able to say those conditions in which F formed may not be same/ similar in Lab and earth-crust.

D. The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure
=> Even if naturally occurring F are in crystalline structure unknown earlier, it is know now. And it doesn't give me any reason to say naturally occurring F would have different structure than the structure of Lab-formed F.
I can't understand how it would weaken the argument

E. Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
=> Already stated a s part of premise, so essentially it's strengthening the argument, not weakening.

I'd appreciate expert views on this.

GMATPill · Answer

paragkan,

You are right that B does weaken too. But between B and D - D is a better answer because it "most seriously" undermines the argument.
B weakens a little bit because if F is found on a small meteorite from outer space, it's possible that the F in shungite is not "natural" and actually came from outer space instead. If that is the case, then we can't get a good idea of the Earth's crust at the time of formation - because that formation happened in outer space. Thus, the argument isn't valid anymore.
BUT, we don't know for SURE whether the F in shungite came from outer space so we can't necessarily say the argument is not valid. It's just that it *might* be invalid if the F is coming from outer space.

adg142000 · Answer

Although D looks close yet it is not definitive as it doesnt say the natural fullerene "the stucture of which is now known" is different or same as the lab fulleren.

Any help on this ??

SVaidyaraman · Answer

Premise: Laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure
conclusion: Naturally occurring fullerenes should help test the state of the earth's crust at the time these fullerenes were formed because of the distinctive conditions required at that time

Assumption: Naturally occurring fullerenes are similar to those synthesized in the lab.

However if as D says if the naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a structure that was not known when the author made the argument then what is hypothesized about natural fullerenes could not be correct. So the argument is undermined by D.

TeamGMATIFY · Answer

The correct option should tell that fullerenes in lab and fullerenes in nature are not analogous.

A, C and E talk about something that is out of scope.
We are left with B and D

B is a very weak weakener. You need to assume too much to make it a weakener. It may or may not be possible that those fullerenes may actually originated on earth. Option just say that fullerenes were found on the remains of a meteorite.

D on the other hand is a very strong weakener. If naturally occurring fullerenes have a different structure all together then it is an entirely different kind of fullerene and therefore conditions for artificial one may be different from the naturally occurring one.

gmatlbs · Answer

A must refer to understand this question "RonPurewal's (from Manhattan) explanation" - https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t1578.html

max0010 · Answer

D says the crystalline structure was  previously  unknown, but now after the successful reconstruction in the lab, it is known. So this should actually help the geologists with their research, in turn strengthening the argument. 
On the other hand, option B talks about the possibility that fullerenes might be extra-terrestrial, this can be an exception to the test-case mentioned and hence option choice B should weaken the argument right?

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Hi  AndrewN ,

I hope you are doing great.

Though I got this question right (mainly on the basis of POE), one word " previously " in the correct answer choice threw me off. 
What does "previously" do here?

(D) would be just as correct without the "previously", so I am not quite able to comprehend its "relevance" here.
 I believe one more person here had asked the same question, but it was unanswered. So, if you could enlighten me as well as the larger crowd, it would be highly appreciated.

Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon-were

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

Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon-were

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