Impact craters caused by meteorites smashing into Earth have been found all around the globe, but they have been foun...

devon April 12, 2023

Only one alternative explanation?

Is it really the case that this premise is sufficient for the conclusion; that is, are there really no other possible alternative explanations? I can certainly see how this answer strengthens and stands far above the rest, but to call it sufficient seems overly strong and presumptuous, no?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin April 12, 2023

Hi, at first I was puzzled by this too, but I'm pretty sure there really isn't any plausible explanation other than geological activity if we assume d. If the distribution of impacts should be even, and we find craters far less in geologically active areas, I can't think of any reason for this other than activity. We have two groups, active and not active, which seem not to have any other differences between them, and there is a differing outcome.

We could try to poke holes in this. Maybe active areas have more weather, which erodes the craters. However in this case, the weather is the proximate cause but geological activity is still the ultimate cause. We could also argue it's pure coincidence, but this seems overwhelmingly unlikely given the even distribution. I'm also somewhat surprised by the strength of the language here, but I think that D does just about fit the bill