-
gauravgundal
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:15 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 13 times
Source - 800score.com prep test
One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: on Earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens' (methane-producing bacteria). In addition, there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials as well.
Which of the following is true of this argument?
A. It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.
B. Since this argument does not appeal to analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.
C. This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.
D. The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if the existence of methanogenic bacteria were revealed to exist on other planets in our solar system through on-site explorations.
E. It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica without bacterial action at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.
[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]
I am rather quiet confused with answer choice A.
My process says that A can't be the answer choice as it compares the other compound and it's related bacterial action ,to that methane and methanogens
Even if there exist a similarity between a compound and it's bacterial action to methane and methanogens,we can't conclude that methanogens are likely to be present in inter-planetary material.
Can anyone explain me on what bases the answer choice A is correct?
One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: on Earth, all the natural occurrences of methane that we know of are associated with 'methanogens' (methane-producing bacteria). In addition, there is evidence that methane is also present in some inter-planetary material in comets. Therefore, it is likely that methanogens are present in these materials as well.
Which of the following is true of this argument?
A. It would be strengthened by the discovery of other compounds which occur both on earth and in comets, and whose terrestrial occurrence is strongly correlated with bacterial action.
B. Since this argument does not appeal to analogies between terrestrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena, it does not need any explanation of how methanogens synthesize methane.
C. This argument has no evidential force with respect to the extra-terrestrial existence of bacteria unless it can be supplemented with an explanation of the process by which terrestrial bacteria synthesize methane.
D. The plausibility of Hoyle's conclusion would be seriously weakened if the existence of methanogenic bacteria were revealed to exist on other planets in our solar system through on-site explorations.
E. It would be strengthened if it were discovered that methane is generated in Antarctica without bacterial action at low temperatures, which approximate those of comets far out in the solar system.
[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]
I am rather quiet confused with answer choice A.
My process says that A can't be the answer choice as it compares the other compound and it's related bacterial action ,to that methane and methanogens
Even if there exist a similarity between a compound and it's bacterial action to methane and methanogens,we can't conclude that methanogens are likely to be present in inter-planetary material.
Can anyone explain me on what bases the answer choice A is correct?
Last edited by gauravgundal on Wed May 18, 2011 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
