Dr. Khan: Professor Bums recognizes

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong / Speculative10% picked this

   If the recent observations had been made under good conditions, they would have provided conclusive evidence of a comet reservoir far

   It's always dangerous to predict the outcome of a counterfactual. We don't know anything about what would be true if the recent observations had been made under good conditions. They may have refuted the old comet reservoir observations; they may have corroborated them. Who knows?

   10%
2. B

   Too Strong: confirm1% picked this

   Contrary to Professor Bums's view, the recent observations confirm the

   This flies too far in the right direction. The author is pointing out that the recent observations are sketchy to push back a little at Bums's view that the new data refutes the old data. Our author is merely suggesting, "Whoa ... these aren't great observations. They were under poor conditions. Let's not draw any definitive conclusions about the old observations based on these sketchy ones." This answer is saying, "Whoa .. these aren't great observations. Thus, you're dead wrong, Bums. They actually confirm the earlier observations."

   1%
3. C

   Correct58% picked this

   Professor Bums's claim about the implications of the recent observations

   Why this is right

   This still sounds more definitive than I'd expect (Bums's claim is incorrect), but this is the most supportable answer available. The author is definitely suggesting that we'd be hasty to throw out the old observations based on these sketchy new ones. So our author disagrees that these new observations imply that the old ones are incorrect. Bums's claim was extreme, so denying it is a moderate idea. Bums was like, "These new observations are enough / are sufficient ... these new observations prove that the earlier ones were wrong." By saying Bums's claim is incorrect, we're only saying, "Whoa --- the new observations don't prove the old ones were wrong".

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

   58%
4. D

   Too Speculative12% picked this

   The recent observations, even if they had been made under good conditions, would not have been enough to suggest that

   We don't know anything about what would be true if the recent observations had been made under good conditions. They may have refuted the old comet reservoir observations; they may have corroborated them. Who knows?

   12%
5. E

   Too Strong: worthless19% picked this

   The poor conditions present during recent observations render

   This also goes too far in the correct direction. The author is pointing out that the recent observations are sketchy, not worthless. He's just trying to push back a little at Bums's view that the new data refutes the old data. Our author is merely suggesting, "Hey ... these aren't great observations. They were under poor conditions. Let's not draw any definitive conclusions about the old observations based on these sketchy ones." But it's taking it to a whole other level to say the recent observations are worthless.

   19%