Q17 - Photographs show an area of Europa

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Determine the Function

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: There might be life on Europa.
Evidence: A warm sea is thought to be a primary factor is allowing life to develop, and there seems to be a warm sea beneath Europa's surface, as indicated by some photos of an icy surface buckling.

Any prephrase?
They are asking us about one of the supporting ideas. Pretty much everything was a supporting idea, leading up to the final conclusion after "so".

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
A) Is it a subsidiary conclusion? It definitely PROVIDES support for the main conclusion. The warm sea on Europa is the main reason we're saying there might be life on Europa. Does this claim ITSELF have support? "WHY do we think there is a warm sea on Europa?" Because, photos show some ice buckling as a result of moving waters underneath. So yes, this qualifies as a subsidiary conclusion.

B) No, the overall conclusion comes after "so".

C) Nothing in this paragraph has any antagonistic purpose. All the ideas are there to lead up to the final conclusion.

D) No, it's not the ONLY premise. The idea that scientists consider warm seas to be a primary precondition of life is also a premise.

E) We already analyzed the hierarchy of supporting ideas, so we know that this claim IS a subsidiary conclusion, not support for one.

Takeaway/Pattern: "Subsidiary" or "Intermediate" conclusion is a popular correct answer on Determine Function questions. For that reason, it's also a popular incorrect answer. Make sure you're clear on how to test whether a given claim is a subsidiary concluion. You have to establish two things: 1. it provides support for a main conc, and 2. It has its OWN supporting premise

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

It may not related to the argument directly...
But, why do they equates "turbulent water" and "warm sea"?
sea can be cold right?
Not ice does not nec. mean the sea is warm...
Could you explain why this is the case? May not directly related to the reasoning, but it may do I thought...

[ohthatpatrick]

I think turbulent = moving waters = in its warmer liquid state, not its colder frozen state

But as long as you knew they were making that connection in language, you should allow it. It's not our task here to worry about assumptions or gaps.

[13trav]

I'm still a little confused on this one. I chose E and I understand why A is correct but I can't get my head around why E is wrong. It seemed to me that the sentence after the one the question is asking about begins with a sub conclusion: it supports the main argument and is supported by the fact that there is a warm sea. Otherwise we would have no reason to be discussing possible life without a warm sea present. What am I missing? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

For something to qualify as a subsid cond, it should have its own support:
you should be able to ask "What's the support for that idea?" and point to a supporting reason.

There's a warm sea beneath Europa's icy surface.
"What's the support for that idea?"
photos show that ice has buckled, as though there is liquid water moving underneath.

vs.

The presence of a warm sea is thought by scientists to be a primary factor in the early development of life.
"What's the support for that idea? Why do scientists believe that?
there's a warm sea beneath Europa's icy surface.

Huh?

"A warm sea on Europa" is the reason that scientists think that a warm sea is a precondition of life?

You just are thinking, "The discussion of the warm sea contextually led into the sentence about a warm sea being a precondition of life."

They have some relevance to each other, but they don't have any logic of support to each other.

"It is raining" and "Target sells umbrellas" have some contextual relevance to each other, but neither one is a supporting reason for believing the other.

Why does Target sell umbrellas?
(NOT because it is presently raining)

Why is it raining?
(NOT because Target sells umbrellas)

[LukeM22]

How does S1 support S2 again? Is "turbulent waters moving underneath" the support for "this photographic evidence means warm sea"?

The way I abstracted was this

S1: "photos show turbulent waters" (i.e. phenomena X exists)

S2: "photos indicate warm sea" (phenomena X (turbulent waters) means phenomena Y (warm sea).

I'm still confused as to why these aren't just two independent premises that collaborate to support the main conclusion. I feel like S1 doesn't "support" S2 in the sense that it strengthens the X-Y relationship detailed in that sentence, it just allows one to conclude that there is warm sea if the two are paired together.

[ohthatpatrick]

Sentence 2 actually explicitly says,
"This photographic evidence [sentence 1] indicates (supports) that there is a warm sea beneath Europa's icy surface".

You were writing it as though it was saying "Sentence 1 supports the idea that there is photographic evidence."

Sentence 1 is photographic evidence.

And the question stem isn't asking about all of Sentence 2 (grammatically); it's only asking about the claim "there is a warm sea beneath Europa's icy surface".

Did the argument provide any evidence for the claim that
"there is a warm sea beneath Europa's icy surface"?

Yes, it provided some photographic evidence that the icy surface appears to be buckling as a result of turbulent water underneath.