The search for NEOs (or "Near Earth Objects") has intensified greatly within the
last few years with the emergence of a virtual army of amateur astronomers.
By combing their observations into a single database at the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, "backyard scientists" are capable of accurately determining
the orbits and motions of asteroids that could hit the Earth. Indeed,
in recent years much of the burden for accurately evaluating the risks posed
by NEOs has been shouldered by amateur astronomers. Therefore, we should
reserve larger, professional telescopes for uses other than finding NEOs.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Because of their numbers, amateur astronomers as a group are much
more efficient than are individual professional telescopes at accurately
determining NEO orbits.
(B) Because large telescopes are often controlled by governments or
institutions, professional scientists do not always have full discretion
to use these telescopes any way they would like.
(C) Most amateur astronomers do not have any professional training in
astronomy.
(D) NASA has set a goal of finding at least 90% of the estimated 1000 NEOs
larger than 1 kilometer in diameter.
(E) Amateur astronomers primarily provide follow-up observations after
NEO discoveries have been made by the use of larger, computerized
telescopes.
Hello Experts,
The official answer to this question is option E... Could you please answer my question below?
The argument's conclusion is essentially that telescopes should be kept for uses other than 'FINDING' NEO's. Doesn't option E strengthen the argument? If Astronomers primarily use telescopes to provide follow ups after discoveries have been made, it basically strengthens the argument that telescopes can be utilized for other purposes other than 'FINDING' the NEO's(such as aiding in follow ups and all)...please help...
last few years with the emergence of a virtual army of amateur astronomers.
By combing their observations into a single database at the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, "backyard scientists" are capable of accurately determining
the orbits and motions of asteroids that could hit the Earth. Indeed,
in recent years much of the burden for accurately evaluating the risks posed
by NEOs has been shouldered by amateur astronomers. Therefore, we should
reserve larger, professional telescopes for uses other than finding NEOs.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Because of their numbers, amateur astronomers as a group are much
more efficient than are individual professional telescopes at accurately
determining NEO orbits.
(B) Because large telescopes are often controlled by governments or
institutions, professional scientists do not always have full discretion
to use these telescopes any way they would like.
(C) Most amateur astronomers do not have any professional training in
astronomy.
(D) NASA has set a goal of finding at least 90% of the estimated 1000 NEOs
larger than 1 kilometer in diameter.
(E) Amateur astronomers primarily provide follow-up observations after
NEO discoveries have been made by the use of larger, computerized
telescopes.
Hello Experts,
The official answer to this question is option E... Could you please answer my question below?
The argument's conclusion is essentially that telescopes should be kept for uses other than 'FINDING' NEO's. Doesn't option E strengthen the argument? If Astronomers primarily use telescopes to provide follow ups after discoveries have been made, it basically strengthens the argument that telescopes can be utilized for other purposes other than 'FINDING' the NEO's(such as aiding in follow ups and all)...please help...
