It takes the heat of large stars or supernovae to cause

guerrero wrote:It takes the heat of large stars or supernovae to cause the fusion of magnesium with hydrogen, creating a chemically stable aluminum. Since aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on Earth, it can be inferred that, at least at some point, the temperature inside or outside Earth was comparable to that on large stars or supernovae.

Which of the following, if true, causes most damage to the conclusion of the argument above?



(A)Creation of stable aluminum requires distinct pressure conditions not typical of contemporary Earth.

(B)Some of the aluminum found on Earth was brought here with asteroids or other cosmic bodies that were parts of large stars or supernovae.

(C)Most aluminum on Earth comes in oxides, and native aluminum can be found only in low oxygen environments.

(D)Aluminum found on Earth has several vacant electrons that have to be artificially removed in order for it to become chemically stable.

(E)Magnesium itself can only be formed under strictly defined conditions.

OA to follow

I think OA should be C.
I was between A and C. But somehow both look good to me honestly

Whats the OA and source.

For weaken the argument types we can introduce completely irrelevant information and/or mention something opposite to the conclusion. Here A tells us something new, so it is a contender and so does C. Real tight.

C-agrees to the conclusion very "lightly"
A-says cannot be possible because"x" did not exist then

I say A

But very tight. Source?

+1 for [spoiler]{C}[/spoiler]

OA is D -


Below is the OE
The argument states that production of chemically stable aluminum requires high temperatures and concludes that since there is aluminum on Earth, there must have been high temperatures on Earth. The argument makes a couple of assumptions, and we can weaken it by denying either of them. First, the argument is valid only if we assume that the aluminum found on Earth was created on Earth. Otherwise, if it came with meteorites or other flying cosmic stuff, the logic of the argument would be ruined. The other assumption is easy to derive if you notice a small shift the argument makes: when talking about high temperatures and stars, the argument is concerned with chemically stable aluminum; the evidence about Earth, however, deals with aluminum in general, so we must assume that this Earth aluminum is also chemically stable. So here are two major assumptions we distilled:

1) Aluminum found on Earth was created on Earth.

2) Aluminum found on Earth is the same chemically stable aluminum that is created on large stars and supernovae.

Denying either of these assumptions will weaken the argument.

Choice A. Pressure and contemporary Earth are outside the scope of the argument because the conclusion we need to weaken deals with temperature and is not about current situation.

Choice B. This seems to deny the first assumption, but since it deals only with some aluminum, the logic of the argument stays undamaged since other aluminum was created on Earth. This choice and the word some are too weak to weaken the argument.

Choice C. This information has no impact on the argument. There is aluminum on Earth; its production required heat; therefore, the Earth must have been hot.

Choice D is correct. Albeit indirectly, this choice says that the aluminum found on Earth is different from the aluminum created on stars and supernovae and therefore does not necessarily require the same conditions for creation.

guerrero wrote:OA is D -


Below is the OE
The argument states that production of chemically stable aluminum requires high temperatures and concludes that since there is aluminum on Earth, there must have been high temperatures on Earth. The argument makes a couple of assumptions, and we can weaken it by denying either of them. First, the argument is valid only if we assume that the aluminum found on Earth was created on Earth. Otherwise, if it came with meteorites or other flying cosmic stuff, the logic of the argument would be ruined. The other assumption is easy to derive if you notice a small shift the argument makes: when talking about high temperatures and stars, the argument is concerned with chemically stable aluminum; the evidence about Earth, however, deals with aluminum in general, so we must assume that this Earth aluminum is also chemically stable. So here are two major assumptions we distilled:

1) Aluminum found on Earth was created on Earth.

2) Aluminum found on Earth is the same chemically stable aluminum that is created on large stars and supernovae.

Denying either of these assumptions will weaken the argument.

Choice A. Pressure and contemporary Earth are outside the scope of the argument because the conclusion we need to weaken deals with temperature and is not about current situation.

Choice B. This seems to deny the first assumption, but since it deals only with some aluminum, the logic of the argument stays undamaged since other aluminum was created on Earth. This choice and the word some are too weak to weaken the argument.

Choice C. This information has no impact on the argument. There is aluminum on Earth; its production required heat; therefore, the Earth must have been hot.

Choice D is correct. Albeit indirectly, this choice says that the aluminum found on Earth is different from the aluminum created on stars and supernovae and therefore does not necessarily require the same conditions for creation.

Whats the source of this question.

source please ???

guerrero wrote:OA is D -


Below is the OE
The argument states that production of chemically stable aluminum requires high temperatures and concludes that since there is aluminum on Earth, there must have been high temperatures on Earth. The argument makes a couple of assumptions, and we can weaken it by denying either of them. First, the argument is valid only if we assume that the aluminum found on Earth was created on Earth. Otherwise, if it came with meteorites or other flying cosmic stuff, the logic of the argument would be ruined. The other assumption is easy to derive if you notice a small shift the argument makes: when talking about high temperatures and stars, the argument is concerned with chemically stable aluminum; the evidence about Earth, however, deals with aluminum in general, so we must assume that this Earth aluminum is also chemically stable. So here are two major assumptions we distilled:

1) Aluminum found on Earth was created on Earth.

2) Aluminum found on Earth is the same chemically stable aluminum that is created on large stars and supernovae.

Denying either of these assumptions will weaken the argument.

Choice A. Pressure and contemporary Earth are outside the scope of the argument because the conclusion we need to weaken deals with temperature and is not about current situation.

Choice B. This seems to deny the first assumption, but since it deals only with some aluminum, the logic of the argument stays undamaged since other aluminum was created on Earth. This choice and the word some are too weak to weaken the argument.

Choice C. This information has no impact on the argument. There is aluminum on Earth; its production required heat; therefore, the Earth must have been hot.

Choice D is correct. Albeit indirectly, this choice says that the aluminum found on Earth is different from the aluminum created on stars and supernovae and therefore does not necessarily require the same conditions for creation.

Yeah Correct; must be [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler] only. I din't knew the meaning of the word contemporary