anujasterisk90
someone please explain its answer.
Meteor showers or storms left in the wake of disintegrating comets fall towards the earth and have caused several accidents when they collide with unmanned communication satellites. Irish astronomer James Lawrence postulated a method for calculating the position of the meteor dust at Earth's orbit by studying the dust ejected in 1866 by comet 55P/ Tempel-Tuttle and the Leonid shower return of 1898 and 1899. This method allowed him to predict with reasonable accuracy the position of the meteor dust as it approaches the earth. Hence, it can be safely assumed that accidents caused by the collision of meteor showers with unmanned communication satellites will be prevented.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
1)Predictions about the position of approaching meteor showers are much more accurate today than they were in the last decade of the nineteenth century.
2)Scientists have corroborated Lawrence’s work and established the significance of the Leonid shower to calculations of the position of meteor dust.
3)Evidence other than that used by Lawrence has previously enabled scientists to predict the position of the meteor dust as it approaches the earth.
4)Scientists have not been able to understand exactly how the meteor showers disintegrate before they reach the earth, yet manage to have a significant impact on the unmanned satellites.
5)Some scientists have found several discrepancies between Lawrence’s work with meteors and his earlier work.
Hi I will give my 2 cents on this.
There is a problem of meteorites colliding with Satellites. A method was found and applied (Sample) and this is projected to say that This method can be used to avoid/prevent such attacks in the future.
Weaken the argument. Here comes the "ALTERNATE WEAKENER" (doesnot directly criticize)
A - Comparison of accuracy - Infact a mild Strengthener
B - Strengthener
C - This is the correct choice. Previously scientists have used methods to predict the collision issue. But still for some reason, This is not happening right. There could be huge complexity involved. This implies that any new prediction algorithm won`t work fine (here we have James lawrence theorem)
D - Irrelevant. You dont need to understand something to find something. (serendipity)
E - This states lawrence work with meteors and not about collision prevention algorithm.
Hope it helps!@