I am torn betwen A and E.

I will go with A since the passage says something like the info about photographs is accurately represented. If the reseacrhes (humans) cannot imagine a flying saucer as some man made human object then they have missed one or two which is good enough to say flying saucers exist but they are rare or something like that.

I may be off here...

Regards,
CR

What about B?

I am between B and E. I think B is better cos it does say that 'a number' of pics are made up, so you cannot really dissapprove the phenomenon.

I am not too keen on A. ALthough it is not wrong but it is not a conclusion, its just something already mentioned in the passage.

I choose E.

I don't think there's enough proof in the argument to support A. Also I'm guessing we are not restricted to only man-made objects in the argument. There is mention of earthly objects which could be mountain tops, trees etc. (I may be inferring too much over here)

E however talks about skeptical researchers bringing their skepticism to their work.
I have to believe that since the only group mentioned in the argument is the skeptical researchers, their conclusion can only be refuted by E. Since they are already convinced that the UFO's are fake they tend to conclude on that too.

IMO B.

To go against the conclusion the best way is to point out the flaw in the reasoning that led to the conclusion.

B exactly does that.

Thanks
Raama

B for me.

A weakens only one part of the evidence.

E doesnt necessarily weaken the conclusion.

I am torn betwen A and E.

I will go with A since the passage says something like the info about photographs is accurately represented. If the reseacrhes (humans) cannot imagine a flying saucer as some man made human object then they have missed one or two which is good enough to say flying saucers exist but they are rare or something like that.

I may be off here...

Regards,
CR

Hello Cramya,

Hope you are doing well.


Like you,I was also torn between A and E. But I will settle for E.

A) not all unidentified objects can be shown to be man- made. So what??

even if they are natural, they bring in the possibility that they can be phenomenon like thunderstorm or lightening which may cause illusion to human eye.

So A does not weaken the argument

E. Since the researchers are already biased, they tend to over look the possibility of flyings saucers as objects of extra-terrestrial beings

Karan

I would go with option B as the correct option