- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:13 pm
#27402
Complete Question Explanation
Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (D)
The conclusion here is that the chances of intelligent life emerging on a planet are low, due to the fact that planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets. The importance of large planets to the emergence of life is that large planets are said to protect other planets from being frequently struck by large comets, and these comet impacts would impede the emergence of intelligent life. Of course, protection against large comets is only necessary if there are large comets in the vicinity of the vulnerable planet, so knowing whether a planetary system contains large comets is crucial to determining the validity of this argument.
Answer choice (A): The type(s) of matter that form planetary systems is/are not discussed, so this answer has no impact on the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): The conclusion is about the potential emergence of intelligent life on a planet, not about what would happen to that life after it emerged, so this answer choice does not address the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): The conclusion is stating that it is unlikely that a planetary system would have any large planets (would likely contain none), so the significance of one large planet versus two large planets is irrelevant.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Apply the Variance Test: if no large comets are present (chances are 0%) then it would still be possible for intelligent life to emerge even without large planets, and the conclusion would be weakened; if many large comets are present (chances are 100%) then the conclusion would seem valid, as the lack of large planets to protect against the comets would be a significant factor against the potential emergence of intelligent life.
Answer choice (E): The size of the planet on which intelligent life might emerge is never discussed in the stimulus, so this answer choice is not relevant to the argument.
Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (D)
The conclusion here is that the chances of intelligent life emerging on a planet are low, due to the fact that planetary systems are unlikely to contain any large planets. The importance of large planets to the emergence of life is that large planets are said to protect other planets from being frequently struck by large comets, and these comet impacts would impede the emergence of intelligent life. Of course, protection against large comets is only necessary if there are large comets in the vicinity of the vulnerable planet, so knowing whether a planetary system contains large comets is crucial to determining the validity of this argument.
Answer choice (A): The type(s) of matter that form planetary systems is/are not discussed, so this answer has no impact on the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): The conclusion is about the potential emergence of intelligent life on a planet, not about what would happen to that life after it emerged, so this answer choice does not address the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): The conclusion is stating that it is unlikely that a planetary system would have any large planets (would likely contain none), so the significance of one large planet versus two large planets is irrelevant.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Apply the Variance Test: if no large comets are present (chances are 0%) then it would still be possible for intelligent life to emerge even without large planets, and the conclusion would be weakened; if many large comets are present (chances are 100%) then the conclusion would seem valid, as the lack of large planets to protect against the comets would be a significant factor against the potential emergence of intelligent life.
Answer choice (E): The size of the planet on which intelligent life might emerge is never discussed in the stimulus, so this answer choice is not relevant to the argument.