PT158 S2 Q14 ExplanationUnlike stars, planets do not generate

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Impact13% picked this

   this galaxy contains no celestial objects that reflect light other

   Whether or not there are other celestial objects that reflect light besides planets is irrelevant to the argument's flaw. The argument's error is about generating light, not reflecting it. Even if planets were the only objects that reflect light, the argument would still fail because it assumes that all non-planet, non-star objects must generate light. The distinction between reflecting and not reflecting light does not address the core gap: the argument never establishes that every non-planet object generates light. Objects that neither reflect nor generate light (like dark asteroids or dust clouds) would also undermine the conclusion, and this answer does not touch that possibility.

   13%
2. B

   No Impact2% picked this

   celestial objects in this galaxy comprise only a minute percentage of all the celestial objects

   The percentage of celestial objects in this galaxy relative to all celestial objects everywhere is irrelevant to the argument's reasoning. The argument is about what types of objects exist in this galaxy and whether they generate light. Whether this galaxy contains 1% or 99% of all celestial objects in the universe has no bearing on whether the non-planet, non-star objects in this galaxy generate light. The flaw is entirely about the logical categories within this galaxy — specifically, the assumption that non-planet objects must generate light. Scaling the argument to the broader universe does not address this internal logical error.

   2%
3. C

   No Impact10% picked this

   celestial objects in this galaxy are not the only celestial objects

   Whether celestial objects outside this galaxy also generate light has no relevance to the argument's flaw. The argument concludes that there are light-generating non-stars in this galaxy. The reasoning error is the assumption that all non-planet objects in this galaxy must generate light. Objects in other galaxies — whether they generate light or not — do not affect this internal logical gap. The argument could be perfectly correct or perfectly flawed about this galaxy regardless of what happens in distant galaxies. The flaw is about how categories of objects are classified within the argument's own scope.

   10%
4. D

   No Impact18% picked this

   there are numerous features that distinguish stars from planets besides the ability

   The argument never claims that the only difference between stars and planets is light generation. The argument's reasoning depends on a simple chain: planets do not generate light, other non-planet objects exist, therefore those other objects generate light. The number of features distinguishing stars from planets is irrelevant to this chain. Even if there are a hundred differences between stars and planets, the argument's flaw remains: it assumes that all non-planet objects must generate light. Knowing that stars and planets differ in additional ways beyond light generation does not address whether that assumption is justified. The overlooked possibility is about what non-planet objects do, not about how stars and planets compare.

   18%
5. E

   Correct57% picked this

   planets are not the only celestial objects that do not

   Why this is right

   The argument's logical chain runs as follows: stars generate light, planets do not generate light, and there are non-star, non-planet celestial objects in this galaxy — therefore some non-star objects must generate light. This conclusion follows only if planets are the only celestial objects that do not generate light. If other non-planet objects — such as asteroids, comets, dust clouds, or dark matter — also fail to generate light, then the mere existence of non-planet objects does not establish that any of them are light-generating. The argument treated the celestial object classification as a simple three-way split: stars (generate light), planets (do not generate light), and everything else (must generate light by default). But "everything else" could easily fall into the non-light-generating camp alongside planets. This answer identifies exactly that overlooked possibility: planets might not be the only objects that fail to generate light, which would collapse the entire inference.

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

   57%