Good CR question

[thestartupguy]

Although fullerenes - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermine the argument?

a) Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation

b) Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft

c) The mineral shungnite itself contains large amount of carbon, from which fullerenes apparently formed

d) The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure

e) Shungite itself is only formed under distinctive conditions


OA after some explanations

[mir.yahya]

IMO B

Because only the above provides alternative explanation.

[mir.yahya]

IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

[mir.yahya]

IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

[mir.yahya]

IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

[mir.yahya]

IMO B

Because only the above option provides possible alternative explanation about the conclusion.

[ArunangsuSahu]

(B)

[k.pankaj.r]

IMO B
as none the other arguments presented a case where the hypothesis state above could be weakened by proving that fullerenes do not exist naturally and can only be manufactured in lab

[tuanquang269]

(B) is not good because if F contain in meteorite, we can determine the condition of Earth' crust at that time .

IMO D