Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyEvaluating the Impact of New Evidence

Origin of Crater X

Two astronomers debate the geological origin of Crater X on Mars.

Astronomer 1
Crater X was formed by a volcanic eruption. Volcanic eruptions on Mars produce basaltic rocks containing high levels of sulfur, but they never produce shock-metamorphosed quartz.

Astronomer 2
Crater X was formed by a meteoroid impact. Impact events generate extreme pressures that produce shock-metamorphosed quartz, but they do not typically leave high concentrations of sulfur.

Suppose a rover collects rock samples from Crater X and detects high concentrations of shock-metamorphosed quartz but negligible levels of sulfur. How does this new finding impact the astronomers' viewpoints?

  1. A
    It supports Astronomer 1's viewpoint and weakens Astronomer 2's viewpoint.
  2. It supports Astronomer 2's viewpoint and weakens Astronomer 1's viewpoint.Answer
  3. C
    It supports both astronomers' viewpoints.
  4. D
    It weakens both astronomers' viewpoints.

Answer

The finding supports Astronomer 2's viewpoint and weakens Astronomer 1's viewpoint.
The correct option correctly identifies that finding high levels of shock-metamorphosed quartz and negligible sulfur supports the meteoroid impact hypothesis (Astronomer 2) and weakens the volcanic eruption hypothesis (Astronomer 1). This matches the predictions made by Astronomer 2 and contradicts the absolute statements made by Astronomer 1.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the new evidence against Astronomer 1's claims.
Astronomer 1 claims volcanic eruptions produce high sulfur and never produce shock-metamorphosed quartz. The new evidence shows high shock-metamorphosed quartz and negligible sulfur, which directly contradicts Astronomer 1's claims.
Determining whether the evidence supports or weakens the first viewpoint requires comparing the observed features to the stated predictions.
2
Analyze the new evidence against Astronomer 2's claims.
Astronomer 2 claims meteoroid impacts produce shock-metamorphosed quartz and do not leave high concentrations of sulfur. The new evidence of high quartz and negligible sulfur matches this description, which supports Astronomer 2's viewpoint.
Determining whether the evidence supports or weakens the second viewpoint requires comparing the observed features to the stated predictions.
3
Combine the evaluations to select the correct statement.
Since the evidence weakens Astronomer 1's viewpoint and supports Astronomer 2's viewpoint, the option describing this relationship is correct.
Synthesizing the individual evaluations leads to the final correct option.

Key Concept

Evaluating the Impact of New Evidence
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating the Impact of New Evidence

More questions from this topic