Q13 - Professor Burns recognizes that recent observations

[jasonleb1]

Can someone explain why the answer is C and what is wrong with D? Doesn't D acknowledge the common "lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence" logical hole? C seems too strong to me. How can we say her results are incorrect just because they occurred under poor conditions?

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's get a complete explanation up here.

Question type: Inference
keywords: from statements above, which is most supported?

Reading Task:
Peruse the facts. Be on the lookout for ways to combine claims (usually via Conditional, Causal, Contrast, or Quantitative language). But don't force it if it's not there.

Analysis of the info:
The clue-word here would be "but", suggesting that the Inference will come from straddling the contrasting claims.

There was a theory about a comet reservoir in the outer solar system.

Earlier observations seemed to see this comet reservoir.
Recent observations could not see it.

So what does that mean to you? Does the comet reservoir exist or not?

Hard to say. You either need to explain why we SEEMED to see it before or why we DIDN'T see it recently. Otherwise, you're arbitrarily picking one view vs. another equally valid one.

Burns does just that. She says, "Well -- recent observations didn't see it. Therefore, we did NOT observe a comet reservoir with our earlier observations."

Our author pushes back suggesting that maybe our RECENT observations are less trustworthy than our EARLIER ones. "But - the recent ones occurred under poor conditions". This contrast word implies that the earlier ones were NOT made under poor conditions.

ANSWER CHOICES
(the cheat code for easier Inference questions is simply to avoid strong claims. The safer a claim is, the easier it is to prove)

(A) A conditional that predicts a hypothetical outcome - very dangerous. We can't get all the way to "good conditions --> proof"

(B) No one's saying that. Clearly the 2nd set of observations goes against the 1st set.

(C) What is Burns's claim about the implications? She claims that "the recent observations ARE ENOUGH TO SHOW that the earlier ones were wrong."

Our author pushes back against that idea with a weakener .. "But the recent ones were made under poor conditions!" (implying: are they REALLY ENOUGH to show the earlier ones were wrong?)

This answer is definitely a little more definitive than we'd like, but two things:
1. the answer to "most supported" doesn't have to be perfect, just more supportable than any other answer

2. this answer choice doesn't mean that Dr. Khan believes that there DEFINITELY IS a comet reservoir. This answer choice only means that Dr. Khan would say "the recent observations DO NOT SETTLE THE DEBATE the way Professor Burns thinks they do."

(D) Again, we're predicting the outcome of a hypothetical - crazy dangerous. The recent observations WEREN'T made under good conditions. We don't know WHAT Dr. Khan would have to say in that circumstance. We only know what he DID say about the ACTUAL circumstance. Moreover, if we had had good observing conditions and found no comet reservoir, Dr. Khan might very well be satisfied with a verdict that the earlier observations must have been mistaken.

(E) "worthless" is a free giveaway. Way too extreme.

[JohnZ880]

I was going to eliminate (E) because of "worthless,' but (C) also had very strong language. I chose (E) on this one because I thought it implied (C). (E), while way stronger than I wanted it to be, is the reason for (C).

For (C), I must have read it incorrectly. I ultimately eliminated (C) because I read it like this, "The implications...(are) incorrect." When, in fact, Dr.Khan isn't saying that the implications are incorrect, but rather that the evidence for the basis of this claim is bad. So I went with (E).

(C) is correct because, as pointed out above, the claim advanced by Professor Burns is that "this nonconformation is enough to show that the earlier observations are incorrect."

If I saw a question like this again, I don't know if I would be any better at it.