|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Professor Robinson: A large meteorite impact crater in a [#permalink]
 29 Apr 2005, 06:55
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Professor Robinson: A large meteorite impact crater in a certain region was thought to be the clue to explaining the mass extinction of plant and animal species that occurred at the end of the Mesozoic era. However, the crystalline structure of rocks recovered at the site indicates that the impact that formed this crater was not the culprit. When molten rocks crystallize, they display the polarity of Earth’s magnetic field at that time. But the recrystallized rocks recovered at the site display normal magnetic polarity, even though Earth’s magnetic field was reversed at the time of the mass extinction.
Each of the following is an assumption on which Professor Robinson’s argument depends EXCEPT:
(A) The crater indicates an impact of more than sufficient size to have caused the mass extinction.
(B) The recovered rocks recrystallized shortly after they melted.
(C) No other event caused the rocks to melt after the impact formed the crater.
(D) The recovered rocks melted as a result of the impact that formed the crater.
(E) The mass extinction would have occurred soon after the impact that supposedly caused it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1547
Location: Germany
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
A) will explain if correct...
_________________
If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 328
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
One more for A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
A. The professor clearly indicates that the crater was thought to have been the culprit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 993
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
GOSH... 
I will go for (E).
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Yes
OA is A,
would anyone kindly explain?
thank you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 89
Location: Lontano da dove
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Yes, would someone kindly explain this one? For instance, how do we assume that the rocks recrystallized “shortlyâ€
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 52
Location: india
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
A.
The professor argues that the impact is not the cause.
The arguement says When molten rocks crystallize, they display the polarity of Earth’s magnetic field at that time. But the recrystallized rocks recovered at the site display normal magnetic polarity, even though Earth’s magnetic field was reversed at the time of the mass extinction.
If the molten rocks recrystallised after some time, this would go against his arguement. He needs to assume that the melting and recrystallisation of the rocks took place as a result of and soon after the impact. B is an assumption.
Same reason is behind C, D and E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 369
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
chunjuwu wrote: Yes OA is A, would anyone kindly explain? thank you I guess it's A. Because assumptions are elements in an argument that are assumed. A is clearly stated, not assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
