Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the
comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter's atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those
fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments' size, astronomers studied
spectrographic analyses of Jupiter's outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur
after the fragments' entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur.
Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer,
it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter's
outer atmosphere without being burned up.In the astronomer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second is part of that
explanation.
B. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that
conclusion.
C. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second
provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a
consideration that weighs against that conclusion.
E. The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

Source: Jamboree

OA
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Yeah, sorry for that.
Edited the post.
Infact I too have seen this question earlier, but the answer choices were different.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Hii Sri.
I will really appreciate if you explain the choice E. I reduced the options to A and E but thereafter I was confused. Moreover since you said that in A first boldface is not something which he is explaining, I could have also said that in E the first boldface is not a judgement.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

To add to my explanation , a judgement is something which is subjective and is not objective. In this case since the support is based on what the astronomers think is correct and less on the actual facts, the support advanced is more a subjective one .
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com

The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many
astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter's outer atmosphere does contain sulfur<<<<<<<<<<<<<I think its a fact which is presented by the astronomer......to support the fact that the fragments crumbled to pieces by the effect of sulfur present in the atmosphere, and i dont think that breaking away of comets by the effect of sulfur is the conclusion of the argument its jsut a premise"

The second bole face is part of a sentence that begins with major Premise and not conclusion indicator ie Since Hence i do not think so it cannot be the conclusion. Moreover here the construction says Since X , Y and is a prediction i.e it is a claim and claim cannot be conclusion.

hence I stand by Option A!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below Explanation is from Manhattan's link....explanation is by Ron...........Really straight fwd explained why second is the conclusion......................

first of all, no explanation is offered for the statement that the fragments didn't contain sulfur. that's just stated as an observation - it's not explained at all.

what is explained is that the fragments DID have sulfur after penetrating jupiter's atmosphere. however, no explanation is provided for why the fragments were devoid of sulfur in the first place.

second, it appears that you've got the basic structure of a passage backward. you don't use the conclusion to justify other statements - you use other statements to justify the conclusion!
if statement X justifies statement Y, then statement Y (not statement X) is the conclusion out of those two.