Q4 - It has been hypothesized that our solar system

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Supernova gas theory right → I60 present in early solar system
I60 not in meteorites from early solar system
Supernova gas theory wrong

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion relies on the contrapositive version of the conditional statement. In order to trigger the rule and get to the conclusion that the Supernova Gas Theory (also the name of my emo band), it must be established that I60 was not present in the early solar system. Comparing this to the other premise, we can see that there's a gap.

This argument uses the composition of meteorites as evidence for the composition of the solar system. I'm no meteorologist (not really the right title, but go with it), but it seems as if the argument is missing a connection between meteorite composition and solar system composition.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Opposite. This answer splits the composition of meteorites and the solar system; the correct answer will connect them.

(B) Out of scope. The argument is concerned about the formation of our universe, so other solar systems are out of scope. Maybe a Strengthen/Weaken question could use this answer choice, but it's not something that's Necessary - our system could be unique!

(C) Out of scope. The argument only talks about I60, so other types of iron are out of scope.

(D) Out of scope. The argument cares about the early solar system, not the later.

(E) Bingo. This answer connects the composition of the meteorite with the solar system. If I60 in the early solar system wouldn't necessarily show up in meteorites, then the whole argument falls apart.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Don’t get scared by crazy science words! This argument is all about the conditional logic. Which, admittedly, is also scary! Download and work on those flashcards.

#officialexplanation