Hurricane forecasters have difficulty determining maximum sustained surface-level winds. Reconnaissance aircraft usually obtain data from a flight lev...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Hurricane forecasters have difficulty determining maximum sustained surface-level winds. Reconnaissance aircraft usually obtain data from a flight level of 10,000 feet. However, in 1997, reconnaissance aircraft began deploying dropwindsondes in hurricanes. These weather instruments, carrying global positioning systems and affixed to parachutes, acquire detailed data from flight level down to surface level. Near the eyewall—the ring of towering thunderstorms surrounding a hurricane's eye—the strongest winds are usually found at around 1,600 feet, about 20 percent stronger than at flight level. In the hurricanes' outer reaches, however, wind maximums are typically found at higher elevations. The data also show that, near the eyewall, winds on top of a thirty-story building average about twenty miles per hour stronger than at ground level. Given the collective dropwindsonde data, forecasters typically estimate eyewall surface-level winds at about 90 percent of flight-level winds, with surface-level winds in the outer reaches at about 78 percent.
Hurricane Mitch in 1998, however, exhibited maximum flight-level winds no stronger than 150 miles per hour, yet dropwindsondes indicated much stronger surface-level winds. In this case, Mitch appeared to be weakening from the top down; the circulation at flight levels was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels. This storm is a reminder that the typical estimates often need modification based on certain real-time factors, especially convective (warm-air updraft) intensity and sea-surface temperature.
Ques. 1/3
The passage most strongly suggests that circulation in hurricanes
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Hurricane forecasters have difficulty determining maximum sustained surface-level winds. | What it says: Scientists can't easily figure out how fast winds are blowing at ground level in hurricanes. What it does: Introduces the main problem - establishes what's difficult about hurricane forecasting. Source/Type: Factual statement about current limitations Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous context. Visualization: Think of forecasters looking at a hurricane and saying "We need to know how fast the wind is at ground level, but we can't measure it directly." What We Know So Far: There's a measurement problem with surface winds What We Don't Know Yet: Why it's difficult, what methods they use, how they solve it |
| Reconnaissance aircraft usually obtain data from a flight level of 10,000 feet. | What it says: The planes that study hurricanes fly at 10,000 feet to gather information. What it does: Explains the current method and reveals why there's a problem. Source/Type: Factual description of standard procedure Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains WHY forecasters have difficulty - they measure wind at 10,000 feet but need to know surface-level wind. [Highlighted: The problem is now clear: measuring high up vs. needing ground-level data.] Visualization: Plane flying 10,000 feet above ocean surface, trying to understand what's happening way down at sea level. Reading Strategy Insight: [Important: This sentence makes the passage LESS complex by explaining the logical reason for the difficulty mentioned in sentence 1.] |
| However, in 1997, reconnaissance aircraft began deploying dropwindsondes in hurricanes. | What it says: Starting in 1997, hurricane-studying planes began using new instruments called dropwindsondes. What it does: Introduces the solution to the problem established in sentences 1-2. Source/Type: Historical fact about technological advancement Connection to Previous Sentences: The word "However" signals this is addressing the problem. We've established the difficulty (can't measure surface winds from 10,000 feet), now here's what changed in 1997. Visualization: Timeline: Before 1997 = problem, 1997 onward = new solution with dropwindsondes What We Know So Far: Problem (surface wind measurement), old method (10,000 foot flights), new solution (dropwindsondes starting 1997) What We Don't Know Yet: How dropwindsondes work, what they revealed |
| These weather instruments, carrying global positioning systems and affixed to parachutes, acquire detailed data from flight level down to surface level. | What it says: Dropwindsondes are weather tools with GPS that use parachutes to collect detailed information as they fall from plane height all the way to the ocean surface. What it does: Explains how the solution works - fills in the technical details. Source/Type: Technical description of how the instruments function Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on "dropwindsondes" from the previous sentence. [Important: Notice how the author helps us: instead of leaving "dropwindsondes" as mysterious jargon, they immediately explain what they are and how they work.] Visualization: Instruments with parachutes dropping from 10,000 feet to sea level, collecting data at every altitude during the fall. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is explanation, not new complexity. The passage is becoming clearer, not harder. |
| Near the eyewall—the ring of towering thunderstorms surrounding a hurricane's eye—the strongest winds are usually found at around 1,600 feet, about 20 percent stronger than at flight level. | What it says: Close to the eyewall (the ring of storms around the hurricane's center), the strongest winds occur at about 1,600 feet altitude, and these winds are about 20% stronger than winds at the 10,000-foot flight level. What it does: Reports a key finding from the dropwindsonde data. Source/Type: Scientific finding/data results Connection to Previous Sentences: This is what the dropwindsondes revealed! We can now see WHY the old method (measuring at 10,000 feet) was problematic - the strongest winds aren't even at flight level. Visualization: • Flight level (10,000 feet): Wind speed = 100 mph • Strongest winds (1,600 feet): Wind speed = 120 mph (20% stronger) • Surface level: [We don't know this yet] What We Know So Far: Maximum winds near eyewall occur at 1,600 feet, not at flight level |
| In the hurricanes' outer reaches, however, wind maximums are typically found at higher elevations. | What it says: In the outer parts of hurricanes (away from the eyewall), the strongest winds are found at higher altitudes. What it does: Provides contrasting information - shows wind patterns vary by location in the hurricane. Source/Type: Additional scientific finding Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the previous sentence. [Contrast: Near eyewall: max winds at 1,600 feet vs. Outer areas: max winds at higher elevations.] Visualization: • Near eyewall: strongest winds at 1,600 feet • Outer reaches: strongest winds at higher elevations (closer to or above 10,000 feet) Reading Strategy Insight: The author is building a complete picture of wind distribution in hurricanes - this adds nuance without contradicting previous information. |
| The data also show that, near the eyewall, winds on top of a thirty-story building average about twenty miles per hour stronger than at ground level. | What it says: The dropwindsonde data reveal that near the eyewall, winds at the height of a 30-story building are on average 20 mph stronger than winds at ground level. What it does: Provides another specific finding, using a relatable reference point (30-story building). Source/Type: Scientific data with concrete example Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues reporting dropwindsonde findings. [Important: Notice the author uses "thirty-story building" to make the altitude relatable instead of giving us another technical measurement.] Visualization: • Ground level: Wind speed = 80 mph • 30-story building height: Wind speed = 100 mph • 1,600 feet (from earlier): Strongest winds = 120 mph Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is building a detailed wind profile from ground to flight level, all supporting the main point about measurement challenges. |
| Given the collective dropwindsonde data, forecasters typically estimate eyewall surface-level winds at about 90 percent of flight-level winds, with surface-level winds in the outer reaches at about 78 percent. | What it says: Based on all the dropwindsonde data, forecasters use these rules: near the eyewall, surface winds are about 90% of flight-level winds; in outer areas, surface winds are about 78% of flight-level winds. What it does: [Highlighted: Provides the practical solution - converts all the technical data into simple formulas forecasters can use.] Source/Type: Practical application/methodology based on research Connection to Previous Sentences: [Important: This is the payoff! All the complex data from previous sentences gets simplified into two easy percentages that solve the original problem.] Visualization: • Flight level measurement: 100 mph • Eyewall surface estimate: 90 mph (90% × 100) • Outer reaches surface estimate: 78 mph (78% × 100) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - the passage just got much simpler. Complex technical findings → simple percentage rules. |
| Hurricane Mitch in 1998, however, exhibited maximum flight-level winds no stronger than 150 miles per hour, yet dropwindsondes indicated much stronger surface-level winds. | What it says: Hurricane Mitch in 1998 had flight-level winds of only 150 mph, but the dropwindsondes showed much stronger winds at surface level. What it does: Introduces an exception to the typical patterns established earlier. Source/Type: Specific case study/exception Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the "typical" estimates from the previous sentence. [Contrast: Normal pattern: surface winds weaker than flight-level winds vs. Mitch: surface winds stronger than flight-level winds.] Visualization: • Mitch flight level: 150 mph • Typical expectation for surface: ~135 mph (90% of 150) • Actual Mitch surface level: much stronger than 150 mph What We Know So Far: The percentage rules don't always work - Mitch was backwards What We Don't Know Yet: Why Mitch was different |
| In this case, Mitch appeared to be weakening from the top down; the circulation at flight levels was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels. | What it says: Mitch was getting weaker starting from the top - the spinning motion was slowing down at flight level but was still strong at surface level. What it does: Explains why Mitch was an exception - describes the unusual weakening pattern. Source/Type: Scientific explanation for the anomaly Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains the Mitch anomaly from the previous sentence. [Important: Again, the author helps us by immediately explaining the confusing exception.] Visualization: Think of a spinning top that's slowing down from the top while the bottom is still spinning fast. Reading Strategy Insight: The passage maintains its helpful pattern - introduce something puzzling, then immediately explain it. |
| This storm is a reminder that the typical estimates often need modification based on certain real-time factors, especially convective (warm-air updraft) intensity and sea-surface temperature. | What it says: Hurricane Mitch reminds us that the standard percentage rules often need adjustment based on current conditions, particularly warm-air updrafts and ocean temperature. What it does: [Highlighted: Concludes by stating the broader lesson - the solution isn't perfect and needs real-time adjustments.] Source/Type: Author's conclusion/practical takeaway Connection to Previous Sentences: This wraps up the Mitch example and connects it back to the main theme. [Important: The passage comes full circle: we started with a problem, got a solution, saw an exception, and now understand the solution's limitations.] Visualization: Forecasters using the 90%/78% rules as starting points, then adjusting based on current storm conditions. Overall Reading Strategy Insight: [Highlighted: This passage followed a classic helpful structure: Problem → Solution → Exception → Refined Understanding. Each complex idea was explained, not just stated.] |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how hurricane forecasters solved a measurement problem and describe the limitations of their solution
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author walks us through a scientific problem and its solution in clear steps:
- First, the author identifies the problem - forecasters can't easily measure surface-level winds because they collect data from planes flying at 10,000 feet
- Next, the author introduces the solution - new instruments called dropwindsondes that were introduced in 1997 and can measure winds from flight level down to the surface
- Then, the author explains what these instruments revealed about wind patterns and how forecasters created simple percentage rules to estimate surface winds from flight-level measurements
- Finally, the author uses Hurricane Mitch as an example to show that these percentage rules don't always work and need to be adjusted based on real-time conditions
Main Point:
While new technology has helped forecasters estimate surface-level hurricane winds much better than before, the standard formulas they developed still need adjustments based on current storm conditions because hurricanes don't always follow typical patterns.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks what the passage "most strongly suggests" about circulation in hurricanes. This is an inference question requiring us to identify what the passage implies about hurricane circulation patterns, particularly how circulation behaves in different conditions or states.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Our passage analysis reveals several key insights about hurricane circulation:
- The passage establishes normal wind/circulation patterns through dropwindsonde data - showing how circulation typically varies by altitude and location within hurricanes
- Hurricane Mitch serves as a crucial exception that reveals important information about circulation during weakening storms - specifically that "the circulation at flight levels was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels"
- The passage describes Mitch as "weakening from the top down," which directly addresses circulation patterns during storm weakening
- The passage emphasizes that typical patterns need modification based on real-time factors, suggesting circulation behaviors can vary significantly
Prethinking:
Based on our analysis, the passage most strongly suggests something about circulation during storm weakening. The Hurricane Mitch example specifically demonstrates that when hurricanes weaken, circulation decreases first at flight level before decreasing at surface level. This creates a temporary period where flight-level circulation is weaker than surface-level circulation, contradicting the normal pattern. The passage uses this as evidence that circulation patterns change predictably during certain storm phases.
Answer Choices Explained
A
weakens at the eyewall before it begins to weaken in the outer reaches of a storm
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage discusses weakening from "flight level down" vs "surface level," not eyewall vs outer reaches
• No evidence provided about timing differences between eyewall and outer reach weakening
• The Mitch example focuses on vertical (altitude-based) circulation differences, not horizontal location differences
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you confuse "eyewall vs outer reaches" with "flight level vs surface level"?
→ Remember that the passage's key insight about weakening relates to altitude differences, not horizontal location differences
1. Did you assume the passage discussed timing of weakening in different storm areas?
→ Focus on what the passage actually states about circulation during weakening - it's about vertical levels, not storm regions
• The passage discusses weakening from "flight level down" vs "surface level," not eyewall vs outer reaches
• No evidence provided about timing differences between eyewall and outer reach weakening
• The Mitch example focuses on vertical (altitude-based) circulation differences, not horizontal location differences
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you confuse "eyewall vs outer reaches" with "flight level vs surface level"?
→ Remember that the passage's key insight about weakening relates to altitude differences, not horizontal location differences
1. Did you assume the passage discussed timing of weakening in different storm areas?
→ Focus on what the passage actually states about circulation during weakening - it's about vertical levels, not storm regions
B
near the outer reaches is typically strongest at elevations above the usual flight level of reconnaissance aircraft
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage states outer reaches have "wind maximums typically found at higher elevations" but doesn't specify "above flight level"
• "Higher elevations" compared to the 1,600 feet mentioned for eyewall doesn't necessarily mean above 10,000 feet
• The passage doesn't make this specific claim about outer reaches exceeding flight level altitude
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you assume "higher elevations" automatically means above flight level?
→ "Higher" is relative to the 1,600-foot eyewall maximum, not necessarily to the 10,000-foot flight level
1. Did you extrapolate beyond what the passage directly states?
→ Stick to what's explicitly supported by the passage text
• The passage states outer reaches have "wind maximums typically found at higher elevations" but doesn't specify "above flight level"
• "Higher elevations" compared to the 1,600 feet mentioned for eyewall doesn't necessarily mean above 10,000 feet
• The passage doesn't make this specific claim about outer reaches exceeding flight level altitude
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you assume "higher elevations" automatically means above flight level?
→ "Higher" is relative to the 1,600-foot eyewall maximum, not necessarily to the 10,000-foot flight level
1. Did you extrapolate beyond what the passage directly states?
→ Stick to what's explicitly supported by the passage text
C
is typically the same from flight level down to surface level before the hurricane begins to weaken
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage shows circulation varies significantly by altitude even in normal conditions
• Data indicates winds at 1,600 feet are "20 percent stronger than at flight level"
• The 90% and 78% estimates prove circulation differs between flight and surface levels even before weakening
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you miss that circulation varies by altitude even in normal storms?
→ The dropwindsonde data shows circulation is never uniform from flight to surface level
1. Did you misread "before weakening" as a condition described in the passage?
→ The passage doesn't describe pre-weakening uniformity - it shows variation is always present
• The passage shows circulation varies significantly by altitude even in normal conditions
• Data indicates winds at 1,600 feet are "20 percent stronger than at flight level"
• The 90% and 78% estimates prove circulation differs between flight and surface levels even before weakening
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you miss that circulation varies by altitude even in normal storms?
→ The dropwindsonde data shows circulation is never uniform from flight to surface level
1. Did you misread "before weakening" as a condition described in the passage?
→ The passage doesn't describe pre-weakening uniformity - it shows variation is always present
D
is usually faster at flight level than it is at surface level after a storm has begun to weaken
Why It's Right:
• Directly supported by Hurricane Mitch example showing flight-level circulation "was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels"
• Demonstrates that during weakening, flight-level circulation becomes weaker than surface-level circulation
• Shows circulation weakening occurs "from the top down," making flight level weaker than surface level during this phase
Key Evidence: "In this case, Mitch appeared to be weakening from the top down; the circulation at flight levels was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels."
• Directly supported by Hurricane Mitch example showing flight-level circulation "was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels"
• Demonstrates that during weakening, flight-level circulation becomes weaker than surface-level circulation
• Shows circulation weakening occurs "from the top down," making flight level weaker than surface level during this phase
Key Evidence: "In this case, Mitch appeared to be weakening from the top down; the circulation at flight levels was decreasing but had yet to decrease at surface levels."
E
will not increase if sea-surface temperatures remain constant
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage mentions sea-surface temperature as a "real-time factor" that affects estimates, not circulation increase/decrease
• No direct statement about circulation behavior relative to constant sea temperatures
• The passage discusses factors that require "modification" of estimates, not circulation patterns themselves
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you confuse factors affecting estimates with factors affecting actual circulation?
→ Sea-surface temperature affects how forecasters modify their calculations, not necessarily circulation itself
1. Did you make assumptions about circulation behavior not stated in the passage?
→ Focus on what the passage directly suggests about circulation patterns, not meteorological assumptions
• The passage mentions sea-surface temperature as a "real-time factor" that affects estimates, not circulation increase/decrease
• No direct statement about circulation behavior relative to constant sea temperatures
• The passage discusses factors that require "modification" of estimates, not circulation patterns themselves
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you confuse factors affecting estimates with factors affecting actual circulation?
→ Sea-surface temperature affects how forecasters modify their calculations, not necessarily circulation itself
1. Did you make assumptions about circulation behavior not stated in the passage?
→ Focus on what the passage directly suggests about circulation patterns, not meteorological assumptions
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More