Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of

[vaibhav.kukreja]

guess u might wanna refer this....
although-fullerenes-spherical-molecules-made-entirely-of-c-t1578.html

[RonPurewal]

Hi Stacey,
Thanks for your explanation.
I have a question here. What's the meaning of "previously unknown crystalline structure ". Does it mean that now the crystalline structure is known? If that is the case then it is a possibility that the fullerenes found in lab have the same crystalline structure. May be, after finding fullerenes, scientist got to know about this "previously unknown crystalline structure". I am just wondering, if this statement is true then can GMAC still mark debatable answers as correct?

"previously unknown" = unknown prior to THAT discovery.

the passage explicitly states that they were FIRST found in the lab, THEN in nature. therefore, if the natural forms were "previously unknown", they can't be the same as the lab forms.

[vineetbatra]

If choice B would have said Many/Most instead of some then would it have been a better choice (then its present state).

[tim]

If choice B would have said Many/Most instead of some then would it have been a better choice (then its present state).

Not at all. The point of B was to posit the existence of these molecules in a different context. As such, changing "some" to "many" or "most" would have no effect on the overall implication of B..

[raghuism]

Can you please clarify choice E.

Probably, distinctive conditions - in which shingite is formed, here probably what I reckon is - distinctive cond. refer to the same dist.cond of the lab. Not the actual meaning of distinctive conditions, i.e., varied conditions and hence discoverers can get no clue of it...

I feel, distinctive conditions form the Shingite, and hence it becomes tougher for the discoverers to identify the cond. of earth's crust... etc.

Sorry, am i missing something here?

[RonPurewal]

Can you please clarify choice E.

Probably, distinctive conditions - in which shingite is formed, here probably what I reckon is - distinctive cond. refer to the same dist.cond of the lab. Not the actual meaning of distinctive conditions, i.e., varied conditions and hence discoverers can get no clue of it...

hmm?
"distinctive conditions" means exactly the opposite of "varied conditions". if the conditions are "distinctive", that means that they are extremely specific/particular, and not varied at all.

in any case, this is all a non-issue, because the formation of shungite is irrelevant.
the passage states that fullerenes were found in cracks inside the shungite, but that has no relationship to the formation of the shungite. for all we know, the shungite was already there for a billion years before the fullerenes formed inside it.

analogy:
if i say that petroleum was formed inside the earth, then that has nothing whatsoever to do with the conditions under which the earth itself was formed.
same thing here.

[srinath.kotela]

In addition I guess B can be kicked out because of some.....in strengthen and weaken in general minority things does not have that much weightage...

Please correct me if I am wrong....

nah. some choices with "some" can have an enormous strengthening/weakening impact.

sample argument:
this process was developed and used exclusively by the people of Culture X.

if you get a choice that states the process was used by SOME people of culture Y, who had never had any contact with culture X, that weakens the above argument considerably.

--

the reason (b) is wrong is that it's totally irrelevant. (so what if fullerenes are found on meteorites? that doesn't change anything about this argument.)

Hi,

Can you please let me know how you have eliminated C.

My reasoning was as the fullerness is formed directly from rock, unlike in lab so conditions might be different during formation.......

[RonPurewal]

My reasoning was as the fullerness is formed directly from rock, unlike in lab so conditions might be different during formation.......

yeah, but the rock doesn't matter.
read the choice again, more carefully this time: "the rock contains lots of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed."
--> in other words, the particular identity of shungite doesn't matter; the only thing that's essential is that there was enough carbon to make these things.
if you replace "shungite" wth "a dinosaur's grocery bag full of carbon", that doesn't change the argument at all. we don't care where the carbon comes from; we only care what happens to it.

[RonPurewal]

I have a question here. What's the meaning of "previously unknown crystalline structure ". Does it mean that now the crystalline structure is known? If that is the case then it is a possibility that the fullerenes found in lab have the same crystalline structure.

no. the passage makes it clear (via the word "since") that the lab discovery happened first, and that the discovery in nature happened second.

I am just wondering, if this statement is true then can GMAC still mark debatable answers as correct?

if you think that a correct answer is "debatable" then your reasoning, not GMAC's, is incorrect.

[rajbharat.87]

Tricky one. I agree B is tempting, but I think I'd go with D here.

Fullerenes found in lab first. (Does it really say "found"? Not created or something like that?)
Then were found in nature.
The lab fullerenes were synthesized at specific T and P.
Therefore, geologists should be able to tell something about T and P of Earth's crust when natural ones were formed.

Connection is the assumption that the way the fullerenes were formed in the lab is analogous to the way they were formed in nature.

I'd label choice B "slightly weakens" - it opens up the possibility that maybe the fullerenes found on Earth came from outer space. Doesn't mean they definitely did, though.

Then I get to D and realize it's better than B - it strongly undermines. The naturally occurring Earth fullerenes are definitely of a different structure than the lab-made ones. If that's the case, then I can't just assume that the process to make them in the lab is analogous to the process to make them naturally.

Hi Stacey,
Nice Explanation :)

Going by the Myth of Deconstructing,
Kernel/Assumption:
Lab Synthesis of X is analogous / Similar to one found naturally.

So B slightly Weakens.
D- Got the point:)--Weakens by Alternate Path
E- Doesnt it Weaken by assuming, Shungite itself is formed by Distinctive conditions and the natural process of converting Shungite to fullerenes might require different conditions as compared with the conditions in lab? Am i assuming too much?

Please enlighten..

[RonPurewal]

I explained choice (e) here:
post67399.html#p67399

If there's something you don't understand in that explanation, please let me know.

[AshishU824]

LAB: ? yes yes
Nature: Content Process Outcome

Because of no knowledge of content, D weakens.

[tim]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Do you have a question about this problem?

[RonPurewal]

It appears that the user is trying to create some sort of exhaustive taxonomy of possible CR problem "templates", and to assign the current problem to one of those "templates".

To the poster:

• Don't try to do this; it won't work.
(If you were able to create such a taxonomy, you'd have solved a problem that has stumped artificial-intelligence researchers for over half a century.)

• This post doesn't add value to the discussion. Please post to ask specific questions about problems. Thank you.

[VikrantS137]

Can we say A and C are completely irrelevant. Hence, wrong.