Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 00:52 |
It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 00:52 |
|
|
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.
Sep 2701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
Sep 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0102:00 AM EDT
-03:00 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
Oct 0301:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Saturdays Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
Question 1
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
84% (03:00) correct
16%
(02:24) wrong
based on 814
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
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:
74% (01:37) correct 26%
(01:53) wrong
based on 958
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 3
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
43% (01:49) correct 57%
(02:03) wrong
based on 913
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 4
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
76% (00:45) correct 24%
(00:49) wrong
based on 829
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
While popular science tends to favor extra galactic astronomical research that emphasizes current challenges to physics, such as the existence of dark matter, dark energy, and Cosmic inflation, significant research continues to take place in the field of planetary astronomy on the formation of our own solar system. In early attempts to explain this phenomenon, astronomers believed in the encounter, or “rogue star,” hypothesis, which suggests that matter was tidally stripped away from our sun as a larger star passed within a gravitationally significant distance some billions of years ago. The encounter hypothesis postulates that after being stripped away, the matter cooled as it spun farther from the sun, and formed planets with their own centers of gravity. This hypothesis conveniently accounts for the fact that all planets in the solar system revolve in the same direction around the sun; it is also consistent with the denser planets remaining closer to the sun, and the more gaseous planets traveling further away.
The encounter hypothesis explained the phenomenon sufficiently enough that it allowed scientists to focus on more immediately rewarding topics in physics and astronomy for most of the first half of the 20th century. Closer investigation, however, found several significant problems with the encounter hypothesis, most notably that the hot gas pulled from the sun would not condense to form dense planets, but rather would expand in the absence of a central, gravitational force. Furthermore, the statistical unlikelihood of a star passing in the (astronomically speaking) short time of the sun’s existence required scientists to abandon the encounter hypothesis in search of a new explanation. Soon after, astronomers formed a second theory, the nebular hypothesis, which submits that the solar system began as a large cloud of gas containing the matter that would form the sun and its orbiting planets. The nebular hypothesis suggests that when the cloud reached a critical mass, it collapsed under its own gravity. The resulting angular momentum would have morphed the nebula into a protoplanetary disc, with a dense center that generated intense heat and pressure, and a cooler, thinner mass that revolved around it. The central mass would have continued to build in density and heat, forming the sun, while the centrifugal force around the disc’s edge kept smaller masses from being pulled in to the sun; those masses, upon cooling, would break off to become planets held in orbit by the competing gravitational force of the sun and centrifugal force of their orbital inertia.
The nebular hypothesis, however well it explained the sun’s formation, remained problematic in its ability to account for the formation of several planets with differing physical and chemical properties. Encouraged by their advance toward a provable hypothesis for the solar system, scientists have recently come to adopt a third hypothesis, the protoplanet hypothesis. This currently accepted theory holds that the gaseous cloud that would form the solar system was composed of particles so cold that even the heat of the forming sun could not significantly impact the temperature of the outer reaches of the cloud. Gas in the inner region, within what scientists refer to as the frost line, was quickly either burned or dispersed, leaving a small amount of metallic matter, such as nickel and iron, to form the inner planets. Such matter would need to have an extremely high melting point to avoid becoming liquefied, ensuring that Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars would remain small and dense. Outside the frost line, however, gas was kept cool enough to remain in solid, icy states. Over time, planets such as Jupiter and Saturn would amass large quantities of frozen gas, enough to grow to hundreds of times the size of the Earth.
The encounter hypothesis explained the phenomenon sufficiently enough that it allowed scientists to focus on more immediately rewarding topics in physics and astronomy for most of the first half of the 20th century. Closer investigation, however, found several significant problems with the encounter hypothesis, most notably that the hot gas pulled from the sun would not condense to form dense planets, but rather would expand in the absence of a central, gravitational force. Furthermore, the statistical unlikelihood of a star passing in the (astronomically speaking) short time of the sun’s existence required scientists to abandon the encounter hypothesis in search of a new explanation. Soon after, astronomers formed a second theory, the nebular hypothesis, which submits that the solar system began as a large cloud of gas containing the matter that would form the sun and its orbiting planets. The nebular hypothesis suggests that when the cloud reached a critical mass, it collapsed under its own gravity. The resulting angular momentum would have morphed the nebula into a protoplanetary disc, with a dense center that generated intense heat and pressure, and a cooler, thinner mass that revolved around it. The central mass would have continued to build in density and heat, forming the sun, while the centrifugal force around the disc’s edge kept smaller masses from being pulled in to the sun; those masses, upon cooling, would break off to become planets held in orbit by the competing gravitational force of the sun and centrifugal force of their orbital inertia.
The nebular hypothesis, however well it explained the sun’s formation, remained problematic in its ability to account for the formation of several planets with differing physical and chemical properties. Encouraged by their advance toward a provable hypothesis for the solar system, scientists have recently come to adopt a third hypothesis, the protoplanet hypothesis. This currently accepted theory holds that the gaseous cloud that would form the solar system was composed of particles so cold that even the heat of the forming sun could not significantly impact the temperature of the outer reaches of the cloud. Gas in the inner region, within what scientists refer to as the frost line, was quickly either burned or dispersed, leaving a small amount of metallic matter, such as nickel and iron, to form the inner planets. Such matter would need to have an extremely high melting point to avoid becoming liquefied, ensuring that Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars would remain small and dense. Outside the frost line, however, gas was kept cool enough to remain in solid, icy states. Over time, planets such as Jupiter and Saturn would amass large quantities of frozen gas, enough to grow to hundreds of times the size of the Earth.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with which of the following?
(A) Describing the manner in which our sun was formed from gaseous material
(B) Criticizing the encounter hypothesis and its explanation of the formation of the solar system
(C) Explaining three theories for the formation of our solar system
(D) Proving that the planets of the solar system have similar compositions
(E) Detailing a research study regarding the origins of the solar system
(A) Describing the manner in which our sun was formed from gaseous material
(B) Criticizing the encounter hypothesis and its explanation of the formation of the solar system
(C) Explaining three theories for the formation of our solar system
(D) Proving that the planets of the solar system have similar compositions
(E) Detailing a research study regarding the origins of the solar system
2) According to the nebular hypothesis, a protoplanetary disc formed in the early stages of the solar system because _______.
(A) cold gases in the outer reaches of the nebula were repelled from the hot center of the spiraling mass
(B) gravity forced the nebular cloud to contract upon itself, creating significant angular momentum
(C) cooling matter held safely from the center of the mass could eventually form planets
(D) matter with a high melting point could not be consumed by the heat in the center of the disc
(E) gravity from a passing star pulled matter away from the sun, allowing planets to form around it
(A) cold gases in the outer reaches of the nebula were repelled from the hot center of the spiraling mass
(B) gravity forced the nebular cloud to contract upon itself, creating significant angular momentum
(C) cooling matter held safely from the center of the mass could eventually form planets
(D) matter with a high melting point could not be consumed by the heat in the center of the disc
(E) gravity from a passing star pulled matter away from the sun, allowing planets to form around it
3) Which of the following discoveries, if true, would best support the protoplanet hypothesis that the temperature difference is responsible for the different sizes of planets on either side of the frost line?
(A) The core of Saturn and the core of Mercury are found to be 98% composed of the same materials.
(B) The cores of Saturn and Jupiter are found to each contain at least five chemical elements not found in the other.
(C) The core of the Earth and the core of Mars are found to be comprised of the same mix of chemical elements.
(D) A nearby star is found to be orbited by six planets, and the size of each is inversely proportional to its distance from the star.
(E) The Earth’s moon is found to have a vastly different composition from that of the moons of Jupiter.
(A) The core of Saturn and the core of Mercury are found to be 98% composed of the same materials.
(B) The cores of Saturn and Jupiter are found to each contain at least five chemical elements not found in the other.
(C) The core of the Earth and the core of Mars are found to be comprised of the same mix of chemical elements.
(D) A nearby star is found to be orbited by six planets, and the size of each is inversely proportional to its distance from the star.
(E) The Earth’s moon is found to have a vastly different composition from that of the moons of Jupiter.
4) The author most likely believes that the nebular hypothesis _______.
(A) is incorrect
(B) was accepted without adequate research
(C) is a partial explanation
(D) is the most complete of the three hypotheses
(E) does not properly explain the presence of a “rogue star”
(A) is incorrect
(B) was accepted without adequate research
(C) is a partial explanation
(D) is the most complete of the three hypotheses
(E) does not properly explain the presence of a “rogue star”
24 Jul 2019, 00:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
1) (C) Explaining three theories for the formation of our solar system
1st paragraph: introduction and the explanation of 1st encounter hypothesis
2nd paragraph: the disadvantages of 1st hypothesis and the explanation of 2nd the nebular hypothesis
3d paragraph: the disadvantages of 2st hypothesis and the explanation of the 3d protoplanet hypothesis
2) (B) gravity forced the nebular cloud to contract upon itself, creating significant angular momentum
2nd paragraph 15 line
The nebular hypothesis suggests that when the cloud reached a critical mass, it collapsed under its own gravity
3) (C) The core of the Earth and the core of Mars are found to be comprised of the same mix of chemical elements.
3d paragraph
[i] Such matter would need to have an extremely high melting point to avoid becoming liquefied, ensuring that Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars
- so, it meants that if the core of the earth and the core of Mars contain the same participles in the inner part they have the same way how they were produced and the same reason why they are so small
4) (C) is a partial explanation -
3d paragraph - however well it explained the sun’s formation, remained problematic
1st paragraph: introduction and the explanation of 1st encounter hypothesis
2nd paragraph: the disadvantages of 1st hypothesis and the explanation of 2nd the nebular hypothesis
3d paragraph: the disadvantages of 2st hypothesis and the explanation of the 3d protoplanet hypothesis
2) (B) gravity forced the nebular cloud to contract upon itself, creating significant angular momentum
2nd paragraph 15 line
The nebular hypothesis suggests that when the cloud reached a critical mass, it collapsed under its own gravity
3) (C) The core of the Earth and the core of Mars are found to be comprised of the same mix of chemical elements.
3d paragraph
[i] Such matter would need to have an extremely high melting point to avoid becoming liquefied, ensuring that Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars
- so, it meants that if the core of the earth and the core of Mars contain the same participles in the inner part they have the same way how they were produced and the same reason why they are so small
4) (C) is a partial explanation -
3d paragraph - however well it explained the sun’s formation, remained problematic
General Discussion
27 Aug 2014, 00:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
(B) Gravity forced the nebular cloud to contract upon itself, creating significant angular momentum.
1.SS began as a large cloud of gas .
2.when the cloud reached a critical mass, it collapsed under its own gravity.
3.The resulting angular momentum would have morphed the nebula into a protoplanetary disc.
1.SS began as a large cloud of gas .
2.when the cloud reached a critical mass, it collapsed under its own gravity.
3.The resulting angular momentum would have morphed the nebula into a protoplanetary disc.
31 May 2023, 05:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here is my take for Q3.
3) Which of the following discoveries, if true, would best support the protoplanet hypothesis that the temperature difference is responsible for the different sizes of planets on either side of the frost line?
(A) The core of Saturn and the core of Mercury are found to be 98% composed of the same materials. -Incorrect, If the composition of the core for both of the planets on either side of the frost line is similar then this fact will completely destroy the protoplanet hypothesis. We don't want that.
(B) The cores of Saturn and Jupiter are found to each contain at least five chemical elements not found in the other. - Incorrect, Okay so we have at least 5 different chemical elements in Saturn & Jupiter, but here we have no idea about the proportions of those chemicals in each of the planet. Furthermore, if both the planets are so different from each other then this would result in the destruction of protoplanet hypothesis, because both the planets fall on the same side of the frost line.
(C) The core of the Earth and the core of Mars are found to be comprised of the same mix of chemical elements. -Correct, we have same mix of chemical elements on the same side of the frost line. This is good, this is exactly what we want. Keep it.
(D) A nearby star is found to be orbited by six planets, and the size of each is inversely proportional to its distance from the star. - Incorrect, well protoplanet hypo. is concerned with our solar system and is theorizing about the creation of planets which revolve around our sun. We can say that may be a nearby star and its' 6 planets comes under our solar system but still there is no mention of the word TEMPERATURE in this choice nor anything which can be affected by temperature. We need a fact/ outside knowledge/ new information which can elevate the position of the role played by temperature in this hypothesis.
(E) The Earth’s moon is found to have a vastly different composition from that of the moons of Jupiter. - Incorrect, Again may be the moons were made from their respective planets or may be someone dropped them off at some point of time. We don't know anything about moons. Our sole concern in this passage is the Sun and its' planets and how they could be created. Lets' not assume in such question and stick to an option which can directly help support the hypothesis.
3) Which of the following discoveries, if true, would best support the protoplanet hypothesis that the temperature difference is responsible for the different sizes of planets on either side of the frost line?
(A) The core of Saturn and the core of Mercury are found to be 98% composed of the same materials. -Incorrect, If the composition of the core for both of the planets on either side of the frost line is similar then this fact will completely destroy the protoplanet hypothesis. We don't want that.
(B) The cores of Saturn and Jupiter are found to each contain at least five chemical elements not found in the other. - Incorrect, Okay so we have at least 5 different chemical elements in Saturn & Jupiter, but here we have no idea about the proportions of those chemicals in each of the planet. Furthermore, if both the planets are so different from each other then this would result in the destruction of protoplanet hypothesis, because both the planets fall on the same side of the frost line.
(C) The core of the Earth and the core of Mars are found to be comprised of the same mix of chemical elements. -Correct, we have same mix of chemical elements on the same side of the frost line. This is good, this is exactly what we want. Keep it.
(D) A nearby star is found to be orbited by six planets, and the size of each is inversely proportional to its distance from the star. - Incorrect, well protoplanet hypo. is concerned with our solar system and is theorizing about the creation of planets which revolve around our sun. We can say that may be a nearby star and its' 6 planets comes under our solar system but still there is no mention of the word TEMPERATURE in this choice nor anything which can be affected by temperature. We need a fact/ outside knowledge/ new information which can elevate the position of the role played by temperature in this hypothesis.
(E) The Earth’s moon is found to have a vastly different composition from that of the moons of Jupiter. - Incorrect, Again may be the moons were made from their respective planets or may be someone dropped them off at some point of time. We don't know anything about moons. Our sole concern in this passage is the Sun and its' planets and how they could be created. Lets' not assume in such question and stick to an option which can directly help support the hypothesis.
