CR, Shoemaker-Levi

[buivinhnguyen]

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

I choose B, but i am wrong.
Could you please explain the OA clearly??
Thank you very much

[agha79]

Can you please tell us what is the OA?

"B" is not the right answer becasue first bold fase is not against the second bold fase.

I got "E"for an answer

[ritesh.bindal]

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

I choose B, but i am wrong.
Could you please explain the OA clearly??
Thank you very much

IMO E should be the answer. It is clear that the second bold part is the conclusion. "Some of the fragments were large and they penetrated". This is the reason behind posting this whole argument. So on this basis, we can disregard choices A and B. Now, first part is serving as a premise for this conclusion. These fragments did not have sulfur therefore even though these fragments are present in outer cloud, they can not provide sulphur. However, sulphur is present in outer part.
So this sentence is a premise that "Fragments did not have sulfur". And this sentence is supporting the conclusion that sulfur came from inner cloud. So B and C can be disregarded.
So E should be the answer. E says that first part is supporting conclusion (Correct) and second part is the conclusion (Correct).

[velascojh]

Hi,

Could you post what is the OA ?

[buivinhnguyen]

OA is E , you are right

[RonPurewal]

Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up.

In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that explanation.

B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.

D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion.

E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

I choose B, but i am wrong.
Could you please explain the OA clearly??
Thank you very much

IMO E should be the answer. It is clear that the second bold part is the conclusion. "Some of the fragments were large and they penetrated". This is the reason behind posting this whole argument. So on this basis, we can disregard choices A and B. Now, first part is serving as a premise for this conclusion. These fragments did not have sulfur therefore even though these fragments are present in outer cloud, they can not provide sulphur. However, sulphur is present in outer part.
So this sentence is a premise that "Fragments did not have sulfur". And this sentence is supporting the conclusion that sulfur came from inner cloud. So B and C can be disregarded.
So E should be the answer. E says that first part is supporting conclusion (Correct) and second part is the conclusion (Correct).

nicely done.

[purduesr]

I got the right answer, but had trouble knocking off (a), because i thought The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur is the circumstance for which the argument offers explanations in it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up. , a statement which also serves as the argument's conclusion. Can someone clarify what this reasoning is incorrect?

[jerly_vivek]

Option A can be easily kicked out.
The author has no where in the argument explained why fragments contained no sulfur. The second bold face answers the main question of the argument : "... but they did not show how big those fragments were?"

[RonPurewal]

I got the right answer, but had trouble knocking off (a), because i thought The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur is the circumstance for which the argument offers explanations in it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up. , a statement which also serves as the argument's conclusion. Can someone clarify what this reasoning is incorrect?

couple of things wrong here.

first of all, no explanation is offered for the statement that the fragments didn't contain sulfur. that's just stated as an observation - it's not explained at all.

what is explained is that the fragments DID have sulfur after penetrating jupiter's atmosphere. however, no explanation is provided for why the fragments were devoid of sulfur in the first place.

second, it appears that you've got the basic structure of a passage backward. you don't use the conclusion to justify other statements - you use other statements to justify the conclusion!
if statement X justifies statement Y, then statement Y (not statement X) is the conclusion out of those two.

[vgirotra]

A great breakdown of this problem by Stacey at BTG:

http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/02/03/breaking-down-a-gmatprep-cr-boldface-problem

[RonPurewal]

A great breakdown of this problem by Stacey at BTG:

http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/02/03/breaking-down-a-gmatprep-cr-boldface-problem

thanks for the linkage.

[mcmebk]

A great breakdown of this problem by Stacey at BTG:

http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/02/03/breaking-down-a-gmatprep-cr-boldface-problem

thanks for the linkage.

Hi Ron I have one question:

Can scientists find fragments in Jupiter (I don't know how since it is impossible to travel there)? It appears so because they detected sulfur in those fragments. My question is, since they can find fragments in Jupiters anyway, can that lead them to the conclusion "some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's outer atmosphere without being burned up" nonetheless? I don't see why do they need to have evidence from "sulfur".

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

mcmebk, you ought to read that passage again; unfortunately, you've misinterpreted quite a few of the key statements.

viz.:

Can scientists find fragments in Jupiter (I don't know how since it is impossible to travel there)?

the passage doesn't say that they found fragments.

in fact, if they had found fragments, then there would be no point in making this argument at all; the whole purpose of this argument is to present evidence in favor of the (uncertain) idea that there were such fragments.

It appears so because they detected sulfur in those fragments.

this is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what the passage actually says. try reading it again.

I don't see why do they need to have evidence from "sulfur".

Thank you.

it's best to save this question until you've gone back and re-read the passage, since your first reading was very inaccurate.
once you've read the passage again, this stuff will probably make a lot more sense. (in particular, the fragments themselves didn't contain sulfur, and that's part of the reason why the sulfur evidence is significant.)