Setup — two asteroid types and their expected rotation distributionsCollisions can speed up or slow down asteroid rotation. If all asteroids are monoliths (single rocks), rotation rates should form a full bell curve including fast and slow tails. If asteroids are rubble piles (loose aggregates), the fast-rotation tail would be missing — because any rubble pile spinning faster than once every few hours would fly apart.Key findingResearchers observed that almost all asteroids obey a strict rotation speed limit. The only exceptions are 5 asteroids all smaller than 200 meters, with an abrupt cutoff at that diameter.Conclusion drawnAsteroids larger than 200m are rubble piles. The 5 exceptions (under 200m) are monoliths. This matches computer modeling which also finds a structural transition at 200m.[color=#3d3d3a]Explanation — why the 200m cutoff existsA collision can blast a large asteroid apart, but the fragments usually move slower than escape velocity — so gravity pulls them back together over several hours into a rubble pile. Because collisions are frequent, most large asteroids have already become rubble piles this way. Small asteroids stay as monoliths because their gravity is too weak — fragments easily reach escape velocity and fly off permanently, leaving nothing to reassemble.[/color]
q1[color=#0f6e56]✓ Correct: (C) — they are monoliths.Chain: exceptions are all under 200m → paragraph 2 says small asteroids stay monolithic because weak gravity can't reassemble fragments → therefore the 5 are monoliths. Requires connecting two parts of the passage.All choices(A) Same rotation rates — speculation, never compared in the passage.(B) Same number of collisions — speculation, never discussed.(C) They are monoliths — correct, supported by size + paragraph 2 gravity logic.(D) Composed of escaped fragments — escape velocity is mentioned in paragraph 2 but never linked specifically to these 5 asteroids.(E) Detected only recently — never stated anywhere.[/color]
[color=#712b13][color=#3c3489]Q2 — what finding would challenge the conclusion?✓ Correct: (D) — asteroid 500m diameter, rotating once per hour.The conclusion is: asteroids larger than 200m are rubble piles. To challenge it you need a large asteroid spinning faster than "once every few hours" — because a rubble pile at that speed would fly apart, meaning it must be a monolith. D is larger than 200m AND spins faster than the threshold.All choices(A) 100m, once per week — under 200m and very slow. No challenge.
(B) 150m, 20x per hour — under 200m so it's expected to be a monolith. No challenge to the conclusion about large asteroids.
(C) 250m, once per week — large but extremely slow. Consistent with rubble pile.
(D) 500m, once per hour — large AND fast. Challenges the conclusion directly.(E) 1,000m, once per 24 hours — large but very slow. Consistent with rubble pile.[/color][/color]
[color=#712b13][color=#3c3489]Q3 — prediction based on small asteroid gravity?✓ Correct: (B) — small asteroids will be monoliths.Directly stated: "most small asteroids should be monolithic, because impact fragments easily escape their feeble gravity." Gravity is the direct cause, monolith is the direct prediction.Your answer: (D)
You picked D (fast rotation rates). Your chain was: small → monolith → fast rotation. The logic is valid but D is one step too far from gravity. The question asks what gravity predicts — gravity predicts monolith structure, not rotation speed. Rotation speed follows from structure, not directly from gravity.All choices(A) Few in number — never discussed.
(B) Monoliths — correct, directly caused by weak gravity.(C) Collide rarely — frequency of collisions never linked to gravity strength.
(D) Very fast rotation — one step too removed from gravity. Rotation follows from structure, not directly from gravitational strength.
(E) Almost none with slow rotation — never stated, and slow rotation isn't discussed for small asteroids.[/color][/color]
[color=#712b13][color=#3c3489]Q4 — why does the author mention escape velocity?✓ Correct: (E) — the tendency for large asteroids to persist after collisions.Escape velocity explains why large asteroids get reassembled into rubble piles after collisions — fragments move slower than escape velocity, gravity pulls them back, they persist. For small asteroids the opposite happens: fragments escape. The mention of escape velocity is to explain the outcome for large asteroids, not to discuss speed itself.Your answer: (B)
You picked B (speed of reassembly). The passage never discusses how fast reassembly happens — only that it happens over several hours. Escape velocity explains whether reassembly happens at all, not how quickly. The key insight: escape velocity is about the outcome (persist vs. fly apart), not the speed of the process.All choices(A) Asteroids become smaller over time — never stated.
(B) Speed of reassembly — passage never discusses reassembly speed. This is what you picked.
(C) Frequency of collisions — escape velocity has nothing to do with collision frequency.
(D) Rotation rates of small asteroids — escape velocity is never linked to rotation rates directly.
(E) Large asteroids persist after collisions — correct. Escape velocity explains why fragments stay and get reassembled.[/color][/color]