When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 becoming

Question

When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 becoming 1,000 times brighter in September 1995, they correctly hypothesized that its increased brightness was a result of the comet's breaking up-when comets break up, they emit large amounts of gas and dust, becoming visibly brighter as a result. However, their observations did not reveal comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 actually breaking into pieces until November 1995, even though telescopes were trained on it throughout the entire period.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the statements above?

(A) Comets often do not emit gas and dust until several weeks after they have begun to break up.
(B) The reason comets become brighter when they break up is that the gas and dust that they emit refract light.
(C) Gas and dust can be released by cracks in a comet even if the comet is not broken all the way through.
(D) The amount of gas and dust emitted increased during the period from September through November.
(E) The comet passed close to the sun during this period and the gravitational strain caused it to break up.

desaichinmay22 · Answer

C for me. Comet need not be entirely broken for the release of gas and dust. If gas and dust can come out of cracks on comet then conflict can be resolved. Release of gas and dust through cracks before comet went into bust made it look brighter.

OA please

amitsurana · Answer

Why A cannot be the answer??
I am unable to skip A.

Thanks.

sshrivats · Answer

The apparent contradiction is

the increased brightness is caused by gas and dust produced when the comet is breaking up -- > this happens in September, but the comet has not actually broken up into pieces until November.

Only option C accounts for both these ... it correctly says how gas and heat were produced( through cracks) , even though the comet actually broke into pieces much later.

@amitsurana : Option A is wrong because, it says the gas and heat were only released much later ( in November). But we know that the increased brightness was observed in September and that it was caused by gas and dust. If the gases were emitted much later than September, as suggested in option A, the scientists would not have observed increased brightness in September. Hope its clear.

manasdash1 · Answer

a. Out of scope
b. Suggests the same as the premise. Not helpful to resolve conflict.
c. Helps answer the question:  How comets could break, emit gas and dust and still be hidden from telescope. 
d. Nope.
e. Not enough information to falsify or pass.

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

When astronomers observed the comet Steinman-Arnet 3 becoming 1,000 times brighter in September 1995, 
they correctly hypothesized that its increased brightness was a result of the comet’s breaking up.

When comets break up, they emit large amounts of gas and dust, becoming visibly brighter as a result.

However, their observations did not reveal comet Steinman-Arnet 3 actually breaking into pieces until November 1995,
even though telescopes were trained on it throughout the entire period.

In Simple words: Symptoms were shown way before but even happened much later.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the situation above?.............. Paradox qn

(A) Comets often do not emit gas and dust until several weeks after they have begun to break up........... this is reverse of what happened in this case. Does not help to address the paradox.

(B) The reason comets become brighter when they break up is that the gas and dust that they emit refract light........... this explains why they are brightened not why the comet broke later.

(C) Gas and dust can be released by fissures in a comet, even if the comet is not broken all the way through............ fissures mean cracks or narrow opening. Thus this explains why it brightened before it broke up into pieces.

(D) The amount of gas and dust emitted steadily increased during the period from September through November... .........This explains why it brightened from September to November but does not explain why it broke up later and why not earlier.

(E) The comet passed close to the sun during this period and the gravitational strain caused it to break up.......... I believe this is a wonderful trap but explaining why the comet broke up is not the same as explaining why the scientists observed the brightness before the actual disintegration.

Skywalker18 · Answer

(A) Comets often do not emit gas and dust until several weeks after they have begun to break up- intensifies the paradox, does not resolve it .
(B) The reason comets become brighter when they break up is that the gas and dust that they emit refract light. -provides new information, but does nothing to bridge the gap between the two contradictory observations .
(C) Gas and dust can be released by cracks in a comet even if the comet is not broken all the way through.- bridges the gap and explains how gas and dust – which cause increased brightness – can be emitted before a comet completely disintegrates.
(D) The amount of gas and dust emitted increased during the period from September through November. - Irrelevant and does not resolve the paradox .
(E) The comet passed close to the sun during this period and the gravitational strain caused it to break up.- provides new background information and does not resolve the paradox .

Answer C

BillyZ · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION 
Solution: C

As evidenced by the phrase, “most helps to resolve the apparent conflict”, this is an “Explain the Paradox” question, a subtype of the Strengthen category. Our mission is strategically similar to traditional Strengthen questions, but instead of minding the logical gap between a conclusion and its supporting premises, we must focus on the logical gap separating two contradictory statements. With this particular problem, we understand that gas and dust caused increased brightness, and when comets break up they emit gas and dust. The paradox lies in the fact that the scientists observed the increased brightness – caused by gas and dust – but didn’t observe the comet’s breakup until later. The paradox hinges on the timing of the observations. (Notice that the problem explicitly states the scientists “correctly hypothesized that its increased brightness was a result of the comet’s breaking up” – we can rule out any answers which imply the brightness was caused by something else.)

Answer choice “A” actually intensifies the paradox, not fixes it. (Be careful of Weaken answers in Strengthen question types!) If the comet broke up first, then emitted gasses later, the increase in brightness caused by the gas and dust would actually come after the breakup, not before. The problem clearly states that the increased brightness preceded the observed breakup.

Answer choice “B” provides new information, but does nothing to bridge the gap between the two contradictory observations. While it explains the scientific mechanism behind why a disintegrating comet is brighter, it doesn’t explain why the Steinman-Arnett 3 comet was brighter before it was visibly breaking up.

Answer choice “C” bridges the gap and explains how gas and dust – which cause increased brightness – can be emitted before a comet completely disintegrates. This explains the timing of the contradictory observations and shows how scientists could note increased brightness before observing the comet’s complete dissolution. “C” is the correct answer.

Answer choice “D” seems to imply that more and more gas and dust were emitted by the comet throughout the timeframe in question, but it fails to resolve why the scientists observed a 1,000 times increase in brightness in September, but didn’t observe the breakup until November. The gap in timing is not explained.

Answer choice “E” is another answer that provides new background information without bridging the gap between the two contradictory observations. Explaining why the comet broke up is not the same as explaining why the scientists observed the brightness before the actual disintegration. With questions like these, we must focus on connecting both paradoxical pieces.

BillyZ · Answer

Source : LSAT PrepTest 36 Q13

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FROM KAPLAN 
 Mentally rephrasing a “conflict” or paradox can reveal its resolution.

A simple rephrasing: How can astronomers in September have “correctly” attributed the comet’s greater brightness to its breakup, when the breakup wasn’t observed until two months later?  If the breakup had begun earlier and unobserved , that’s how. (C) explains how the  brightness could have increased  PRIOR to the observation of the  comet’s breakup , and removes all conflicts among the statements.

(A) is a 180 in that it deepens the mystery of how the brightness could have begun in advance of the November sighting.

(D), too, if anything deepens the paradox, since it describes brightness-creating activity prior to November.

Two choices relate to irrelevant causes of brightness (B) and comet breakup (D).

Neither speaks to the dis-junction between the September hypothesis and November observations.

chesstitans · Answer

stuck with A and C.
A is exactly opposite to C.
test takers must train their nerves to become steel so that test takers are able to choose the choice quickly in the actual test.

aaba · Answer

I initially choose C, but I still cannot get rid of A. It is because the question is not clear what "telescopes were trained on it" means. In other words, I cannot tell whether scientists discover the break up, or the telescope spot the break up.

To me, the most piece that convince me why A is incorrect is "have begun", then A does not resolve the paradox at all.
 Also, the question actually means there is no break up in 1985 because the brighter of the comet is caused by sth else.
It takes 10 min to understand this question. So crazy.

US09 · Answer

The apparent paradox is- even the increased brightness of a comet can be attributed to its breaking up, astronomers waited till November to confirm the same. Why? Maybe the increased brightness first observed could possibly be attributed to some other reason and astronomers confirmed the same in November after observing the star for three months. 
A. Our conclusion is about comets who do emit gases and dust and therefore appear bright. Out of scope. Incorrect. 
B. We are not concerned about the technical reasons of why they appear brighter. Incorrect. 
C. Another possible reason for the comets to appear brighter. Could be the reason why astronomers confirmed in November the reason for the comet appearing brighter. Hold.
D. This should have made the star brighter in November. But conclusion is not about more or less bright but about stating the reason behind the brightness. Incorrect.
E. Irrelevant information. Incorrect.

Hence, C.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

sameermukhi · Answer

When astronomers observed the comet Steinman-Arnet 3 becoming 1,000 times brighter in September 1995, they correctly hypothesized that its increased brightness was a result of the comet’s breaking up. When comets break up, they emit large amounts of gas and dust, becoming visibly brighter as a result. However, their observations did not reveal comet Steinman-Arnet 3 actually breaking into pieces until November 1995, even though telescopes were trained on it throughout the entire period.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the situation above?

(A) Comets often do not emit gas and dust until several weeks after they have begun to break up.
(B) The reason comets become brighter when they break up is that the gas and dust that they emit refract light.
(C) Gas and dust can be released by fissures in a comet, even if the comet is not broken all the way through.
(D) The amount of gas and dust emitted steadily increased during the period from September through November.
(E) The comet passed close to the sun during this period and the gravitational strain caused it to break up.

Conflict: Comet became brighter (which is a sign of comet breaking up) in Sept but telescope did not reveal breaking until Nov
Given: Comets become brighter because of dust and gas they emit after break up.
In other words, Gas and dust were released in Sept (so breaking did take up) but telescope did not reveal it
There could be 2 reasons for it: 
1st reason: Breaking take some time, starts with small cracks which brighten the comet but it takes time for it to fully break
2nd reason: Some problem with telescope. Because argument already supplies information that this cant be true.
We are left with first reason only, which is Option C

Paras96 · Answer

Option (C)  explains that gas and dust can be released by cracks in a comet even if the comet is not completely broken into pieces. This addresses the delay in observing the breakup because it suggests that the increased brightness in September could be attributed to gas and dust emissions through cracks before the comet fully broke into pieces in November.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 becoming

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

When astronomers observed the comet Schwassman-Wachmann 3 becoming

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