Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyAssessing Model Support and Contradiction

Two models are proposed to explain the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere of Exoplanet Kepler-186f:

* Model 1 (Internal Volcanism): Water vapor is released into the atmosphere primarily through volcanic eruptions from the planet's interior.
* Model 2 (Comet Impacts): Water vapor is delivered to the atmosphere through frequent collisions with icy comets.

Match each of the following new astronomical observations with the statement that best describes its relationship to the models.

  • Detection of sulfur dioxide, a gas associated with volcanic eruptions, in areas with high atmospheric water vapor levels.Supports Model 1 because it links a volcanic gas to atmospheric water vapor.
  • Observation of a sharp increase in water vapor following the impact of multiple icy space objects.Supports Model 2 because it demonstrates water delivery via impact events.
  • Analysis showing the planet has a completely solid crust with no active magma chambers or volcanic vents.Contradicts Model 1 because it shows the mechanism for volcanic activity is absent.

Answer

Observation of volcanic gases supports Model 1; water vapor increases after icy impacts support Model 2; and a lack of active magma chambers contradicts Model 1.
The correct matches align the physical evidence with the corresponding mechanisms: sulfur dioxide gas supports the volcanic source (Model 1), the impact of icy bodies supports the comet source (Model 2), and a solid crust without magma contradicts the volcanic source (Model 1) by removing the physical mechanism required for volcanism.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core claim of Model 1, which attributes atmospheric water vapor to internal volcanic eruptions.
Identify that findings showing volcanic activity or volcanic gases support Model 1, while findings showing a lack of volcanic capability contradict Model 1.
To establish the criteria for support or contradiction of Model 1.
2
Analyze the core claim of Model 2, which attributes atmospheric water vapor to icy comet impacts.
Identify that findings showing water vapor increases coinciding with impacts support Model 2.
To establish the criteria for support or contradiction of Model 2.
3
Evaluate each of the three findings against the established criteria for Model 1 and Model 2.
Match the sulfur dioxide detection to Model 1 support, the icy impact observation to Model 2 support, and the solid crust observation to Model 1 contradiction.
To determine the correct logical relationship between each finding and the models.

Key Concept

Assessing whether new experimental or observational findings support, contradict, or are neutral toward proposed scientific models.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Assessing Model Support and Contradiction

More questions from this topic