To the Editor:In 1960, an astronomer proposed a mathematical model for determining whether extraterrestrial life exis...
JCarterDecember 28, 2018
Weaken Questions - Help!
It would be really helpful when explaining a question, someone could go step -by-step so we are able to see where we went wrong. For example, in this question, should we notice that this is a sufficient weaken question since it ask "if accepted"?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The best thing you can do to prepare yourself to answer this question is to understand the argument in the stimulus as well as you can. Then, regardless of what type of question you're asked, you'll have a strong foundation of the stimulus.
In the stimulus, we're given information about an astronomer's proposed mathematical model (from 1960) for determining whether extraterrestrial life exists. The model was based on assumptions that life as we know it could exist only on a planet and that many stars are, like our Sun, orbited by planets. The astronomer's model predicted that there are are many as one million extraterrestrial civilizations across all solar systems.
However, Clay notes that astronomers to date have not detected even one planet outside of our solar system. He concludes that the astronomer's model is wrong, and life as we know it exists only on the planet Earth.
The question stem asks us to identify an answer choice that, if accepted by Clay, would require him to reconsider his conclusion. In other words, we're looking for an answer that, if true, casts doubt on Clay's conclusion. This is a weaken question, so the answer must weaken the connection between Clay's premises and his conclusion.
I also provided an explanation to this question in another thread that you posted in, but I'll put my reasoning for the answer choices here as well for your convenience.
Answer A is incorrect because it mentions forms of life "other than life as we know it." The argument in the stimulus is dealing with finding "life as we know it." Life as we know it and life other than life as we know it are two completely different things, where the former could mean human beings, while the latter could be referring to ancient microbial organisms. If this were true, Clay would not have to reconsider his conclusion.
Answer B is incorrect because if it were true, it would only strengthen the notion that life as we know it exists only on planet Earth and that the astronomer's model is wrong.
Answer C is correct because it leaves open the possibility that life as we know it could be outside of our solar system, and we simply don't have the instruments needed to detect it. This casts doubt on Clay's conclusion that the astronomer's model is wrong and that life as we know it exists only on planet Earth. If C is true, then it leaves open the possibility that the astronomer's model is right and that there is life as we know it outside of our solar system.
Answer D is incorrect because it does not go into detail regarding whether or not the specific assumptions made in the argument in the stimulus are warranted, so it doesn't affect the argument. It neither strengthens nor weakens Clay's conclusion.
Answer E is incorrect because it fails to address the failure of astronomers on Earth to find life as we know it outside of our solar system. The 1960 astronomer's model does not rely on extraterrestrials communicating with Earth; what it depends on are scientists on Earth finding life as we know it on other planets outside our solar system. Even if we accept E as true, it would not be relevant to the argument about the astronomer's mathematical model being incorrect.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you'd like more clarification!
