Question

Difficulty: MediumComparing and Contrasting Models

### The Origin of Earth's Water

How Earth acquired its vast oceans is a subject of ongoing debate among geochemists and planetary scientists. Two models have been proposed to explain the origin of Earth's water.

Model 1
During Earth's formation, the high temperatures of the inner Solar System caused volatile compounds, including water, to evaporate. Consequently, the proto-Earth accreted as a dry body. Approximately 3.9 billion years ago, during the Late Heavy Bombardment, a "late veneer" of carbonaceous chondrite asteroids and comets from the outer Solar System collided with Earth. These impactors were rich in water and other volatile compounds, depositing the water that eventually formed the oceans. The deuterium-to-hydrogen (D/HD/H) ratio of Earth's current oceans matches that of carbonaceous chondrite asteroids, supporting this external origin.

Model 2
Earth's water was present from the beginning of its accretion. Water-bearing minerals, such as ringwoodite, were part of the rocky material that formed the proto-Earth. As Earth underwent differentiation into core, mantle, and crust, heat from radioactive decay and gravitational collapse caused these hydrous minerals to release water vapor. This water vapor was transported to the surface through volcanic degassing, eventually condensing to form the oceans. This model argues that the D/HD/H ratio of Earth's oceans reflects the isotopic composition of the early solar nebula, rather than later external delivery.

According to the passage, Model 1 and Model 2 differ in which of the following ways regarding the state of the proto-Earth during its accretion?

  1. Model 1 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted as a dry body, whereas Model 2 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted with water-bearing minerals.Answer
  2. B
    Model 1 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted with water-bearing minerals, whereas Model 2 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted as a dry body.
  3. C
    Model 1 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted water through volcanic degassing, whereas Model 2 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted water through asteroid collisions.
  4. D
    Model 1 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted in the outer Solar System, whereas Model 2 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted in the inner Solar System.

Answer

Model 1 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted as a dry body, whereas Model 2 asserts that the proto-Earth accreted with water-bearing minerals.
The correct option accurately contrasts the two models' assumptions about proto-Earth accretion. Model 1 describes the proto-Earth as accreting as a dry body due to early evaporation of volatiles, whereas Model 2 asserts that water-bearing minerals were part of the accreted rocky material from the very beginning.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Model 1's description of proto-Earth during accretion.
Model 1 states that volatile compounds evaporated due to high temperatures, and 'consequently, the proto-Earth accreted as a dry body.'
To establish the initial state of the proto-Earth under the first model.
2
Analyze Model 2's description of proto-Earth during accretion.
Model 2 states that 'Earth's water was present from the beginning of its accretion' in the form of 'water-bearing minerals, such as ringwoodite.'
To establish the initial state of the proto-Earth under the second model and compare it directly to Model 1.
3
Compare the two findings to find the correct statement.
Model 1 posits a dry proto-Earth, while Model 2 posits a water-bearing mineral accretion. This matches the correct option.
To choose the option that accurately represents the difference in the initial states described in both models.

Key Concept

Comparing initial assumptions and components of two competing geological models
Rate this question