While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:Some sandstone arches in Utah's Arches National Park have been...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- Some sandstone arches in Utah's Arches National Park have been defaced by tourists' carvings.
- Park rangers can smooth away some carvings using power grinders.
- For deep carvings, power grinding is not always feasible because it can greatly alter or damage the rock.
- Park rangers can use an infilling technique, which involves filling in carvings with ground sandstone and a bonding agent.
- This technique is minimally invasive.
The student wants to explain an advantage of the infilling technique. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
To remove carvings from sandstone arches in Utah's Arches National Park, power grinding is not always feasible.
Filling in carvings with ground sandstone and a bonding agent is less invasive than smoothing them away with a power grinder, which can greatly alter or damage the sandstone arches.
Park rangers can use a power grinding technique to smooth away carvings or fill them in with ground sandstone and a bonding agent.
As methods for removing carvings from sandstone, power grinding and infilling differ in their level of invasiveness.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Some sandstone arches in Utah's Arches National Park have been defaced by tourists' carvings." |
|
| "Park rangers can smooth away some carvings using power grinders." |
|
| "For deep carvings, power grinding is not always feasible because it can greatly alter or damage the rock." |
|
| "Park rangers can use an infilling technique, which involves filling in carvings with ground sandstone and a bonding agent." |
|
| "This technique is minimally invasive." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Park rangers have two methods for repairing tourist damage to sandstone arches, with infilling being less invasive than power grinding.
Argument Flow: The notes establish the problem of tourist damage, then present two repair solutions. The first solution (power grinding) is introduced with its limitation for deep carvings. The second solution (infilling) is then presented as an alternative with a key advantage of being minimally invasive.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? Which choice best explains an advantage of infilling
What type of answer do we need? An explanation that shows why infilling is beneficial/better
Any limiting keywords? "advantage" is key - must show a positive aspect, not just describe the technique
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- From our analysis, the key advantage of infilling mentioned in the notes is that it's "minimally invasive"
- The notes also show that power grinding has the limitation of potentially damaging or altering the rock with deep carvings
- So the right answer should:
- Mention that infilling is less invasive/damaging
- Potentially contrast it with power grinding's limitations
- Clearly present this as an advantage, not just a description
To remove carvings from sandstone arches in Utah's Arches National Park, power grinding is not always feasible.
- States that power grinding isn't always feasible
- Focuses on the limitation of power grinding, not the advantage of infilling
- Doesn't explain why infilling is beneficial
Filling in carvings with ground sandstone and a bonding agent is less invasive than smoothing them away with a power grinder, which can greatly alter or damage the sandstone arches.
- States that infilling is "less invasive than smoothing them away with a power grinder"
- Directly explains the advantage by comparing invasiveness levels
- Uses relevant information about power grinding potentially altering/damaging rock
- Clearly presents this as a benefit of the infilling technique
Park rangers can use a power grinding technique to smooth away carvings or fill them in with ground sandstone and a bonding agent.
- Simply lists both techniques without explanation
- Doesn't identify any advantage of either method
As methods for removing carvings from sandstone, power grinding and infilling differ in their level of invasiveness.
- Notes that the methods differ in invasiveness but doesn't explain the advantage
- Fails to clarify which method is better or why