Soru

Zorluk: OrtaComparing and Contrasting Models

### Models of Venusian Resurfacing

The surface of Venus has remarkably few impact craters, and they are randomly distributed across the planet. This indicates that the surface is geologically young, with an estimated age of 300300 to 600 million years600\text{ million years}. Two models have been proposed to explain how the Venusian surface was renewed.

Model 1 (Catastrophic Resurfacing)
Venus has a single, thick, rigid lithospheric plate. Because Venus lacks plate tectonics, internal radiogenic heat cannot be continuously released. Instead, heat accumulates in the mantle, causing it to warm and soften. Eventually, the hot mantle weakens the overlying lithosphere, causing the entire lithosphere to founder and sink into the mantle in a catastrophic, planet-wide event. This is accompanied by massive global volcanism that completely covers the planet in lava, destroying all pre-existing craters within a short span of 1010 to 50 million years50\text{ million years}. Following this event, the lithosphere cools and solidifies again, remaining geologically inactive for hundreds of millions of years until the next cycle.

Model 2 (Gradual Resurfacing)
Venus does not experience planet-wide catastrophes. Instead, it undergoes steady, ongoing tectonic and volcanic activity that is localized. Plumes of hot mantle material rise continuously, causing localized volcanic eruptions and rifting that renew small portions of the surface at any given time. Over hundreds of millions of years, these smaller, scattered volcanic events resurface the entire planet incrementally. While this process is slow and continuous, it produces a spatially random distribution of craters because new craters are constantly forming while older craters are randomly covered by localized lava flows.

Based on the models described, match each scientific assertion on the left with the model(s) that support it on the right.

  • Asserts that Venus's surface renewal is driven by continuous, localized volcanic eruptions.Model 2 only
  • Asserts that Venus's surface renewal occurs in periodic, planet-wide catastrophic events.Model 1 only
  • Acknowledges that Venus's surface is geologically young and has a random distribution of craters.Both Model 1 and Model 2
  • Proposes that Venus possesses active plate tectonics with subduction zones similar to Earth.Neither Model 1 nor Model 2

Cevap

The correct matches pair the localized eruption assertion with Model 2, the catastrophic event assertion with Model 1, the shared geologic age and crater assertion with both models, and the active plate tectonics assertion with neither model.
The correct pairings accurately reflect each model's assertions: Model 2 describes continuous, localized eruptions; Model 1 describes global catastrophic events; both models agree that Venus has a geologically young surface with a random crater distribution; and neither model proposes active plate tectonics.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the description of Model 1 and Model 2 regarding localized versus global events.
Identify that Model 2 states resurfacing is localized and continuous, while Model 1 states resurfacing is catastrophic and global.
This allows matching the first two assertions to their respective models.
2
Analyze the common assumptions or baseline facts established in the passage.
Note that both models seek to explain the geologically young surface (300300 to 600 million years600\text{ million years} old) and random crater distribution, meaning both models agree on these observations.
This determines that the third assertion belongs to both models.
3
Analyze the role of plate tectonics in both models.
Find that Model 1 explicitly states 'Venus lacks plate tectonics' and Model 2 states Venus undergoes activity 'without plate tectonics'. Thus, neither model proposes active plate tectonics.
This determines that the fourth assertion belongs to neither model.

Anahtar Kavram

Comparing and Contrasting Models
Bu soruyu puanla