When a planetary system forms, the chances that a planet
capable of supporting life will be formed are high. The
chances that a large planet the size of Jupiter of Saturn
will be formed, however, are low. Without Jupiter and
Saturn, whose gravitational forces have prevented Earth
from being frequently struck by large comets, intelligent
life would never have arisen on Earth. Since planetary
systems are unlikely to contain any large planets, the
chances that intelligent life will emerge on a planet are,
therefore, low.
Knowing which one of the following would be most
useful in evaluating the argument?
(A) whether all planetary systems are formed from
similar amounts of matter
(B) whether intelligent species would be likely to
survive if a comet stuck their planet
(C) whether large comets could be deflected by only
one large planet rather than by two
(D) how high the chances are that planetary systems
will contain many large comets
(E) how likely it is that planetary systems containing
large planets will also contain planets the size of
Earth
[spoiler]OA is D
I got this wrong, because there is no implication that the comets that struck the Earth come from within the planetary system. Even it is determined that there is very low chance that planetary systems contain large comets, it may possible that large comets will strike the planet from outside the system.
Test for evaluate questions is whether polar opposite answers to the answer choice produce opposite effects on the argument, i.e. strengthen and weaken. If it was stated in the stimulus that comets that might strike the Earth came mainly, or even partially, from within the planetary system D would be undoubtedly the correct answer.
Can the answer like this weaken the argument? Any explanations are appreciated![/spoiler]
capable of supporting life will be formed are high. The
chances that a large planet the size of Jupiter of Saturn
will be formed, however, are low. Without Jupiter and
Saturn, whose gravitational forces have prevented Earth
from being frequently struck by large comets, intelligent
life would never have arisen on Earth. Since planetary
systems are unlikely to contain any large planets, the
chances that intelligent life will emerge on a planet are,
therefore, low.
Knowing which one of the following would be most
useful in evaluating the argument?
(A) whether all planetary systems are formed from
similar amounts of matter
(B) whether intelligent species would be likely to
survive if a comet stuck their planet
(C) whether large comets could be deflected by only
one large planet rather than by two
(D) how high the chances are that planetary systems
will contain many large comets
(E) how likely it is that planetary systems containing
large planets will also contain planets the size of
Earth
[spoiler]OA is D
I got this wrong, because there is no implication that the comets that struck the Earth come from within the planetary system. Even it is determined that there is very low chance that planetary systems contain large comets, it may possible that large comets will strike the planet from outside the system.
Test for evaluate questions is whether polar opposite answers to the answer choice produce opposite effects on the argument, i.e. strengthen and weaken. If it was stated in the stimulus that comets that might strike the Earth came mainly, or even partially, from within the planetary system D would be undoubtedly the correct answer.
Can the answer like this weaken the argument? Any explanations are appreciated![/spoiler]
