Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of

[Harish Dorai]

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 occurring 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 occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure
E) Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.

Can somebody help with an explanation?

[Guest]

Is it E?

if yes, i'll explain
:roll:

[Harish Dorai]

It is not E. Sorry!

[givemeanid]

It should be B. Only B talks about possibility of fullerenes originating from somewhere else which would undermine the conclusion about studying Earth's crust at the time of creation of these fullerenes.

[StaceyKoprince]

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.

[givemeanid]

Yeah. I think I agree with D now after reading the explanation. Though B does weaken, it does not weaken to the same degree as D.

[Harish Dorai]

As per GMATPrep (D) is the right answer. Thanks a lot for the explanation.

[GMAT Fever]

Stacey after reading your explanation D def seems as the right answer.

However can soemone explain why E is wrong? thanks!

[GMAT Fever]

Stacey after reading your explanation D def seems as the right answer.

However can soemone explain why E is wrong? thanks!

NM, I think I got it now.

This passage is about fullerenes and its respective characteristics, not that of the Shungite - This answer choice is irrelevant.

[rfernandez]

Looks like you answered your own question! Good job.

[goelmohit2002]

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....

[RonPurewal]

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.)

[goelmohit2002]

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.)

Thanks Ron !!!

[Ben Ku]

Glad it helped.

[ritesh.bindal]

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,
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?