mohankumarbd wrote:
Anne: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared
brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far
from the Sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.
Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from
the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet
very carefully. Sue challenges Anne’s reasoning by
A) pointing out that Anne’s use of the term “observed” is excessively vague
b) drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims
c) presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne’s evidence
d) offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites
e) undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion
Main CR Qs link -
cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.htmlIn this kind of question attack what the first one person says. Here we have something that comes casually. Infact the second one says:
This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.A) the word observed: is not the real reasoning behind the discussion
B) the two claims do not lack of consistency, are coherent in somehow
C) here we have no evidence at all. the second person do not present a fact but rather a conjecture
D) an alternate explanation: CORRECT. the comet is observed ONLY and ONLY and ONLy because is related to the observation of Halley's Comet
E) here nobody undermine nothing rather gives an other explanation. see D
Kudos if is useful to understand
Do not esitate to make a question
_________________
KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.
close
72% (01:38) correct
