@legallyhaya This is how I thought about this question:
The astronomer starts off by mentioning that these earlier estimates of distances of stars from Earth are known to be untrue. This is because this would mean that the stars are older than the universe, which couldn't possibly happen.
The astronomer then goes on to say that they have their own estimates; it is implied that they believe their estimates to be true. The astronomer's estimates are saying that the stars are farther away than what those earlier estimates (which are untrue) said.
So, the astronomer is saying the stars are (1) farther away and (2) not as old/younger than what was previously thought. This, thinking back on the first premise, also tells us that a closer star is older than a star that is farther away.
The next premise then says "the farther away the stars are, the greater their intrinsic brightness..." So, the stars are (1) farther away, (2) not as old/younger than what was previously thought, and (3) brighter.
From this, the astronomer's argument concludes that these new estimates help to explain the earlier conflict between the age of star and age of universe. Because if it's true that the star is farther away than what was believed, it is younger and brighter. Which helps to discredit that stars are older than the universe.
@Arthurxx If you're between a more strongly worded answer choice and a weakly worded one, go with the latter
2
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
@legallyhaya This is how I thought about this question:
The astronomer starts off by mentioning that these earlier estimates of distances of stars from Earth are known to be untrue. This is because this would mean that the stars are older than the universe, which couldn't possibly happen.
The astronomer then goes on to say that they have their own estimates; it is implied that they believe their estimates to be true. The astronomer's estimates are saying that the stars are farther away than what those earlier estimates (which are untrue) said.
So, the astronomer is saying the stars are (1) farther away and (2) not as old/younger than what was previously thought. This, thinking back on the first premise, also tells us that a closer star is older than a star that is farther away.
The next premise then says "the farther away the stars are, the greater their intrinsic brightness..." So, the stars are (1) farther away, (2) not as old/younger than what was previously thought, and (3) brighter.
From this, the astronomer's argument concludes that these new estimates help to explain the earlier conflict between the age of star and age of universe. Because if it's true that the star is farther away than what was believed, it is younger and brighter. Which helps to discredit that stars are older than the universe.