Scientists have long searched for magnetic monopoles, hypothetical par

Agree with C

Here is the explaination

Premise :Scientists have long searched for magnetic monopoles, hypothetical particles left over from the Big Bang.
Conclusion :In 1982, a detector at Stanford recorded a single event that seemed to be the passage of a monopole.
Premise :However, despite the fact that the Stanford experimental design has withstood all serious challenges, no other detectors have ever recorded similar events.
Counter Premise :Even though one team of physicists has recently claimed to have found indirect evidence that magnetic monopoles must exist, the consensus of the physics community is that monopoles, if they do exist, have not yet been discovered.

Once you break down the argument , you can see that C fits nicely as answer

D is wrong as there was an Experiment in which the particles were recorded

C it is.

Statements A and B can be discounted on the basis that their second part is quite off the mark.

Statements D and E can be discounted based on their first part.

A detector at Stanford recorded an event that seemed to be passage of monopole [monopoles exist]. Though Stanford experiment withstood serious challenges no other detectors was able to record similar event. A team of physicists claimed that monopoles must exist.

Scientists have long searched for magnetic monopoles, hypothetical particles left over from the Big Bang. In 1982, a detector at Stanford recorded a single event that seemed to be the passage of a monopole. However, despite the fact that the Stanford experimental design has withstood all serious challenges, no other detectors have ever recorded similar events. Even though one team of physicists has recently claimed to have found indirect evidence that magnetic monopoles must exist, the consensus of the physics community is that monopoles, if they do exist, have not yet been discovered.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A) The first is a difficulty that contradicts the status quo view of the majority of physicists; the second is that status quo view.
B) The first is a comment that supports a minority position among physicists; the second is an alternative to that minority position.
C) The first is evidence strengthening an unrepeated experimental result; the second is a claim supported by that evidence. - Only C fits the bill
D) The first is an assertion that undermines a hypothesis commonly thought to be unproven; the second is that hypothesis.
E) The first is a corroboration of an assertion that lacks experimental support; the second is that assertion.

Surely...wonderful question....I would like to go with C.....

I used POE:-
A. The second is support fr the minority proponents...its nt the status quo...
B. Second is not alternative...it furthers the point mentioned in first bold face.
C. correct answer
D. The first does not undermines anything.
E. Experimental position for first discussed extensively...so cannot conclude that it lacks the experimental proof.

Consider Kudos If my post helps!!!!!!111

Archit

C says this evidence strengthens an "unrepeated experiment". Where as passage says "no other detectors have ever recorded similar event". So i feel it indicates that Experiment was repeated atleast more than once, however the same results were not obtained. this helps me to eliminate C ang go for E- Please correct me if i am wrong

We may note that both statement (1) and (2) point in same direction; that is they do not contradict each other.

(A) Second is not the status quo view. More importantly first does not contradict second. OUt.
(B) Again this statement pits both statements against each other. These statements do not contradict each other, so this option is OUT.
(C) Hold.
(D) First does not undermine the second statement in any way. Out
(E) Second is supported by at least one experiment. Also First says that that particular experiment has been unchallenged till now. Out

(C) is the answer. First statement is a FACT and second is a Conclusion (may be intermediate); second is certainly a claim. Also this is the statement that mentions that both First and Second statement are pointing in same direction and are not contradicting each other.

chetan2u your views please? C or E?

Hi ashutoshsh,

I will not go into any other point but just stick to the reason you have eliminated C for -

You have eliminated C on words - "unrepeated experiment"...
Could have been correct if it were these exact words, BUT the choice says -"an unrepeated experimental result"... and this is true that the SAME result has never been found earlier or later..

Hope you get the point..

Hi,



answer should indeed be C..
lets see why?

First portion -
the Stanford experimental design has withstood all serious challenges

C calls it - The first is evidence strengthening an unrepeated experimental result...

what is the unrepeated experimental test - a single event that seemed to be the passage of a monopole.
the bold portion gives us a FACT or an evidence that says that the experimental design is dependable and thus strengthens its RESULT.... so correct in first part..

E calls is - The first is a corroboration of an assertion that lacks experimental support..

corroboration means confirm or support, but here strengthening is a better word for the role of boldfaced. Secondly there is experimental support, may be not repeated ...
so Off the mark... BUT still keep it because second boldfaced gives a clear reason to eliminate it



Second portion -
magnetic monopoles must exist

C calls it - the second is a claim supported by that evidence.

Only problem here I see is that EVIDENCE could have been replaced by RESULT,
Because it is the RESULT that supports the claim - "magnetic monopoles must exist"..
--- Evidence may just fit in - Evidence strengthens result and result supports this claim..

E calls it - the second is that assertion.

If we take E as correct, the assertion mentioned in FIRST boldfaced is -"the passage of a monopole" and not "magnetic monopoles must exist"...

This question is an Analyze the Argument Structure question. The best approach is to identify the conclusion of the argument, to characterize how each boldface statement relates to that conclusion, and then to eliminate incorrect answer choices. The conclusion of the argument is the consensus view of the physics community that monopoles have not yet been discovered, whether or not they exist. The first boldface is a premise opposing that conclusion, since the first boldface supports the experiment that recorded the presence of a monopole. The second boldface is the minority view that monopoles are certain to exist. Thus, the first boldface supports the second.

(A) The first boldface does in fact contradict the status quo view of the majority of physicists, i.e. that monopoles have not yet been discovered. However, the second boldface is not that status quo view, but in fact the minority view.

(B) Just as in answer (A), the first boldface does support a minority position among physicists, but the second boldface is not an alternative to that minority position – it is that minority position.

(C) CORRECT. The first boldface provides evidence in support of an unrepeated experimental result: since “no other detectors have ever recorded similar events,” the Stanford experiment’s result is unique. The second boldface makes the claim that monopoles must exist. This claim is supported by the Stanford experiment and thus by the first boldface.

(D) The first boldface does not undermine a hypothesis that most physicists think is unproven. Rather, the first boldface supports the hypothesis, as yet unaccepted by most physicists, that monopoles must exist. The description of the second boldface as that hypothesis is accurate.

(E) The first boldface does not corroborate an assertion that lacks experimental support, since the assertion that monopoles must exist does have support from the Stanford experiment. The description of the second boldface as that assertion is accurate.

(A) The first is a difficulty that contradicts the status quo view of the majority of physicists; the second is that status quo view.
This was no difficulty but rather an experimental evidence was stated

(B) The first is a comment that supports a minority position among physicists; the second is an alternative to that minority position.
This was no comment but rather an experimental evidence

(C) The first is evidence strengthening an unrepeated experimental result; the second is a claim supported by that evidence.
Exactly the meaning they are serving let us hang onto it

(D) The first is an assertion that undermines a hypothesis commonly thought to be unproven; the second is that hypothesis.
This is not underminig any proofs but rather supporting a claim
(E)The first is a corroboration of an assertion that lacks experimental support; the second is that assertion.
i couldn't eleminate the same because i didn't understand the exact reasoning
Hence IMO B