A number of seriously interested amateur astronomers

Answer choices

1. A

   No Distinction, No Impact12% picked this

   Telescopes of certain types will not perform well unless they have been precisely collimated, a

   We're looking for something bad about the Exodus or good about the alternatives (Newtonian telescopes). This answer is talking about something that applies to all telescopes, so it's not going to give a specific edge to one telescope vs. another.

   12%
2. B

   Correct73% picked this

   Image quality is only one of several different factors that, taken together, should determine the choice of a

   Why this is right

   This is a surprisingly weak correct answer, but it's the best available. The author makes an aggressive move from, "The Exodus was superior to the Newtonian telescopes when it comes to the image quality of planetary features" to the conclusion of "Okay, serious amateur who wants to observe planets should buy the Exodus". This answer is saying, "Hey, hey --- slow your roll. There's more to buying a telescope for planetary observation than just considering image quality. You need to also consider its weight, its price, its maneuverability, its ease of locating points in the sky, its ability to take Instagram-ready photos of what you're seeing through the eyepiece. This answer doesn't go as far as to say that Newtonian telescopes win when it comes to any of these other considerations, but simply pointing out that there are other considerations creates a cloud of doubt, where now it's possible that Newtonian telescope could win the head-to-head battle, if it's superior to the Exodus on other levels.

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

   73%
3. C

   No Impact9% picked this

   Many serious amateur astronomers have no intention of buying a telescope

   Whenever we have a conditional conclusion, we can't strengthen it by making the Trigger idea more likely nor can we weaken it by making the Trigger idea less likely. This conclusion was saying, "If you are buying a telescope for planetary observation, then you should go with the Exodus". If most amateurs aren't buying telescopes for that reason, that doesn't hurt the author's recommendation at all. It just means that the author's recommendation is only relevant to a smaller population of people. If I recommend Nature's Delight as the best vegan restaurant in town, you're not countering my recommendation at all by saying, "most people don't want to eat at a vegan restaurant". I never said they did. But for those who do, the best option is Nature's Delight.

   9%
4. D

   Strengthens5% picked this

   The comparisons made by the amateur astronomers were based on observations made during several

   This makes the data set the argument is leaning on seem more robust. We might have objected, "Hey --- the Exodus isn't actually better at seeing crisp details. You just happened to look out on an atypically clear night." But this would fight that objection by saying that the amateurs compared the two telescopes on several different occasions, so potentially under a variety of viewing conditions.

   5%
5. E

   Unclear Impact1% picked this

   The substance used to make the lenses of Exodus telescopes differs from that used in the

   Does "different" mean better-different or worse-different or similar-but-different? The answer doesn't reveal whether this different substance is a positive or a negative aspect of the Exodus's lens.

   1%