For years scientists have been

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong15% picked this

   There is no reason to believe that life exists on

   This author isn't trying to convince us that there's no reason to believe life exists on other planets. She's only trying to convince us that there's no reason to think we'll find evidence of life existing on other planets.

   15%
2. B

   Opposite0% picked this

   The equipment that scientists employ is not as sophisticated as it

   The author thinks the equipment is pretty much as sophisticated (and expensive) as it could get. The fact that we're using the best equipment we can and still not getting results is what combines to fuel her pessimism that our dream of finding alien life will never be realized.

   0%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   Scientists searching for extraterrestrial life will not

   Why this is right

   This means essentially the same thing as the last sentence --- "the dream of finding extraterrestrial life will remain a dream" is equivalent to saying "you ain't gonna find extraterrestrial life". This is an opinion the author defends based on the supporting ideas that we've been searching for years with top notch equipment and haven't uncovered a shred of evidence, and there's no reason to think more time/money would make a difference.

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
4. D

   Too Strong / Assumption8% picked this

   Only if scientists had already found evidence of life on other planets would continued

   This answer feels more like something the author is assuming than something she's concluding. She never actually says anything normative like 'justified' -- she is certainly making us think maybe this is a waste of money / maybe we should stop trying, but she's never said anything to that effect. We couldn't even accuse her of assuming this idea because the "only if" is too strong. Does our author clearly believe that "if they haven't found evidence yet, then continued searching is unjustified"? No, she's not acting like "the fact that we haven't found evidence yet is sufficient to show that more searching would be unjustified", because she's factoring in other things such as "the fact that we haven't found anything yet + the fact that we're using really expensive / sophisticated equipment + the fact that we don't expect more time or money to make a difference".

   8%
5. E

   Normative vs. Descriptive6% picked this

   We should not spend money on sophisticated equipment to aid in the search

   This is very close. It sounds like an opinion our author probably holds. But our author doesn't say anything normative like "should". She just gives us the raw material for us to come away with the notion that we probably should stop spending money on this stuff. But our goal on Main Conclusion is to pick the explicit conclusion, if there is one. The last sentence is an explicit conclusion, and we have an answer choice, (C), that means the same thing as this last sentence. So while I would probably be okay picking this answer choice if they hadn't provided a match for our explicit conclusion, I don't want to invent a position that the author never actually said. We have a much safer answer in choice (C), which is an opinion she expressed and defended.

   6%