PrepTest 68, Section 3, Question 17
The conventional view is that asteroids strike the earth at random locations, thereby randomly affecting various aspects of the earth's evolution. One iconoclastic geophysicist claims instead that asteroids have struck the earth through a highly organized natural process. Cited as evidence is the unusual pattern of impact craters that form a halo-like swath across the Northern Hemisphere. There is a consensus that these craters appeared at the end of the Cretaceous period, followed by a mass extinction of much land and ocean life.
The conventional view is that asteroids strike the earth at random locations, thereby randomly affecting various aspects of the earth's evolution. One iconoclastic geophysicist claims instead that asteroids have struck the earth through a highly organized natural process. Cited as evidence is the unusual pattern of impact craters that form a halo-like swath across the Northern Hemisphere. There is a consensus that these craters appeared at the end of the Cretaceous period, followed by a mass extinction of much land and ocean life.
The conventional view is that asteroids strike the earth at random locations, thereby randomly affecting various aspects of the earth's evolution. One iconoclastic geophysicist claims instead that asteroids have struck the earth through a highly organized natural process. Cited as evidence is the unusual pattern of impact craters that form a halo-like swath across the Northern Hemisphere. There is a consensus that these craters appeared at the end of the Cretaceous period, followed by a mass extinction of much land and ocean life.
The conventional view is that asteroids strike the earth at random locations, thereby randomly affecting various aspects of the earth's evolution. One iconoclastic geophysicist claims instead that asteroids have struck the earth through a highly organized natural process. Cited as evidence is the unusual pattern of impact craters that form a halo-like swath across the Northern Hemisphere. There is a consensus that these craters appeared at the end of the Cretaceous period, followed by a mass extinction of much land and ocean life.
Which one of the following, if true, would most help to support the iconoclastic geophysicist's claim?
Several asteroid strikes within a short period could produce both volcanic activity that warms the oceans and atmospheric debris that blocks sunlight, and such changes could cause mass extinctions.
If asteroids repeatedly pummel the same spots, the beating may affect the flow of molten rock inside the earth, which would affect the degree to which continents drift around the earth's surface.
The impact craters that form a halo-like swath across the Northern Hemisphere were the result of a single cluster of meteors striking the earth.
Lumpy masses within the earth cause gravitational interactions with approaching asteroids that force them into specific orbits before impact.
No similar pattern of impact craters was created during any other period of the earth's history.
Explanations
The passage starts off by telling us "the conventional view is that asteroids strike the earth at random locations." So far, all I know is that prevailing wisdom seems to suggest that asteroid impacts are random.
Then we get the iconoclastic geophysicist's claim: "instead asteroids have struck the earth through a highly organized natural process." Okay... that seems iconoclastic, for sure. How can we go from random to highly organized? I'm intrigued to say the least.
Last, we get a piece of background information: "There is a consensus that these craters appeared at the end of the Cretaceous period..." We go from one point of view to the complete opposite point of view, and then we're told there's something agreed upon. Got it.
The question asks us to strengthen the geophysicist's claim. In other words, our job is to increase the likelihood that these craters in question aren't random. Arguing against random should be pretty easy—we'd need anything that points to them happening less randomly.
Cool story bro, but unrelated to the claim that the asteroids hit in an organized manner.
Again, cool story, but this doesn't help me argue for an organized pattern of asteroid strikes.
This is a weakener. If the asteroids all came from the same meteor shower, then their one instance of clustered impacts doesn't tell me that asteroids in fact strike in an organized way.
Bingo. If something about the earth affects the asteroids in a consistent way, then it's plausible that asteroid strikes aren't actually random. In fact, it's very helpful to the idea that they land in particular places. This is for sure the answer.
Like C, this is a weakener. If this one clustered strike has happened only one time, it's very possible that asteroid strikes are totally random.
0 Comments