Which of the following most logically completes the argument

Daniel Paylor

We are asked to find the answer choice that best completes an explanation of why the proposal in the passage is ill conceived. This is a veiled "weaken the argument" question.

A) This answer choice strengthens the argument for the proposal by highlighting how long the satellites stay in space, creating the very observation problem that the proposal seeks to remove. INCORRECT

B) This answer choice strengthens the argument for the proposal by showing that an alternative solution (fixing the satellites) would be too expensive to implement. INCORRECT

C) This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the proposal. It simply implies there is no precedent for whether the proposal will work. INCORRECT

D) The phrase "without any interference" is extreme language of the kind that is often suspect in GMAT answer choices. The passage implies that the discussed proposal is intended to improve observation, not to create perfect observation by eliminating absolutely all interference. Therefore, the objection that you can't reach perfect observation without moving telescopes into high orbit is irrelevant to the proposal, which merely seeks to improve general observation. INCORRECT

E) While the passage says the number of large satellites is small, the satellites themselves are large, so they could conceivably, when blown-up, create the "greatly increased" number of particles that would make observations impossible. If the proposal resulted in a situation where all observation is impossible, the proposal would clearly fail to improve observation. This is the best weaken the argument option. CORRECT

Aug 3, 2019 • Comment