73 LR Two Question 13
- « 73 LR Two Question 12
- 2724 of 3815
- 73 LR Two Question 14 »
Comments
Use your Negate Test!
If the methane scientists found had not been exposed to UV radiation, that might actually strengthen the argument. It certainly doesn't ruin it, so we now can be sure that this choice is not necessary to this argument.
I don't understand this question at all. All the sentences seem like they don't go together and were just jumbled together and negating the answers didn't help me, either. What is the gap this argument makes? I don't see how the answer links everything together.
Be methodical. Start with the conclusion.
Why does the author claim the methane must have been released recently? Because methane evaporates when hit by sunlight. But what does that tell us about a timeframe? Nothing, right?
The argument has assumed that methane gets hit by sunlight. If you negate that assumption—there's methane on mars that doesn't get exposed to the sun—then the conclusion is stupid. Why would we claim it's recent? That methane could have been there for decades without being exposed to the sun!
Like this: I discovered cake in the breakroom. But cake gets eaten as soon as any employee comes into contact with it. Thus, this cake cannot have been here long.
Exactly as in the above, we've assumed that the cake does get encountered by the employees. If you negate that—employees don't go into the break room—then the argument is stupid. Why is the cake recent? It may have been there for weeks, and no employees came in to see it!
Clearer?