Question

Scientist 1
Hot Jupiters—gas giant exoplanets orbiting extremely close to their parent stars (typically $< 0.1 \text{ AU}$)—form *in situ* (in their current locations). This requires a highly dense protoplanetary disk in the stellar vicinity. Because of the high temperatures near the star ($> 1,500 \text{ K}$), only refractory materials (like iron and silicates) can condense. Consequently, a hot Jupiter formed *in situ* must possess a massive solid core composed of at least $80\%$ refractory silicates and metals by mass, surrounded by a thin, compressed hydrogen and helium envelope making up no more than $20\%$ of the planet's total mass. Volatile compounds (such as water ice and methane) cannot exist in these cores.

Scientist 2
Hot Jupiters cannot form *in situ* because the stellar wind and high temperatures close to a young star deplete the gas required for envelope accretion. Instead, these planets form beyond the 'ice line' ($> 3.0 \text{ AU}$) where temperatures are low enough ($< 150 \text{ K}$) for water, ammonia, and methane to freeze into volatile ices. This abundance of solid material allows a core to grow rapidly and accrete a massive gas envelope representing at least $90\%$ of the planet's total mass. Gravitational interactions with the gas disk then cause the planet to migrate inward. Thus, a migrated hot Jupiter must have a core consisting of more than $50\%$ volatile ices, and its gaseous envelope must constitute at least $90\%$ of its total mass.

Consider the following table summarizing data for three newly discovered exoplanets:

Based on the viewpoints of Scientist 1 and Scientist 2, is the following statement true or false?

'The data for Planet Z is consistent with the predictions of Scientist 2 because its core composition satisfies the requirement of containing more than $50\%$ volatile ices.'