geologists

[trymore]

Prior to 1965 geologists assumed

 

that the two giant rock plates meeting at

 

the San Andreas Fault generate heat

 

Line through friction as they grind past each

 

(5) other, but in 1965 Henyey found that

 

temperatures in drill holes near the

 

fault were not as elevated as had

 

been expected. Some geologists

 

wondered whether the absence of

 

(10) friction-generated heat could be

 

explained by the kinds of rock composing

 

the fault. Geologists’ pre-1965

 

assumptions concerning heat generated

 

in the fault were based on

 

(15) calculations about common varieties of

 

rocks, such as limestone and granite;

 

but “weaker” materials, such as clays,

 

had already been identified in samples

 

retrieved from the fault zone. Under

 

(20) normal conditions, rocks composed of

 

clay produce far less friction than do

 

other rock types.

 

In 1992 Byerlee tested whether

 

these materials would produce friction

 

(25) 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth’s

 

surface. Byerlee found that when clay

 

samples were subjected to the thousands

 

of atmospheres of pressure

 

they would encounter deep inside the

 

(30) Earth, they produced as much friction

 

as was produced by other rock types.

 

The harder rocks push against each

 

other, the hotter they become; in other

 

words, pressure itself, not only the

 

(35) rocks’ properties, affects frictional

 

heating. Geologists therefore wondered

 

whether the friction between the

 

plates was being reduced by pockets

 

of pressurized water within the fault that

 

push the plates away from each other.

 

1.

 

1. The passage suggests which of the following regarding Henyey’s findings about

 

temperature in the San Andreas Fault?

 

A. Scientists have yet to formulate a definitive explanation for Henyey’s findings.

 

B. Recent research suggests that Henyey’s explanation for the findings should be

 

modified.

 

C. Henyey’s findings had to be recalculated in light of Byerlee’s 1992 experiment.

 

D. Henyey’s findings provided support for an assumption long held by geologists.

 

E. Scientists have been unable to duplicate Henyey’s findings using more recent

 

experimental methods.

 

2.

 

2. The passage is primarily concerned with

 

A. evaluating a method used to test a particular scientific hypothesis

 

B. discussing explanations for an unexpected scientific finding

 

C. examining the assumptions underlying a particular experiment

 

D. questioning the validity of a scientific finding

 

E. presenting evidence to support a recent scientific hypothesis

 

 

the OAs for two questions differ from two different tests. How do you think?

1.AB

2.BD

[rebel]

Ab???

[big_bunny]

A,B for me too ..

Author is not questioning the validity of the finidng .. so for the second option D is not correct !!!!

[bystander]

Agree with previous post, A, B

1. Henyey's finding disspells previous theory, but no new theory is established, or, at least, not mentioned in the texts. B cann't be right, if there is nothing to dispute.

 

2. Henyey's finding is expected, later work(1992) is trying to find an explanation for it. Thus, B.

 

what do u think?

[ramanathansankar]

It has to be A and B.

[Neo750]

It is A,B

 

2) it cannot be D as author has no stand in the passage, except for discussing various findings.

 

1) 'A' is wrong, as per passage Henyey has not explained anything.

[Boddy]

Agree it has to be A & B

[Gatsby_dc]

A, B--

[Da_Gr8_Mperor]

A "Some geologists wondered..." from the middle of the first paragraph. "Geologists therefore wondered whether..." from the last sentence of the last paragraph. Put together, they don't have an explanation.

 

B Passage doesn't evaluate a method, examine assumptions, question validity, or present evidence--thus, must discuss explanations.

[tablesalt]

I also go with A and B.