PT75.S1.Q15 - astronomer: in most cases

skdygks03

Hello. I have some trouble in nailing this question.

(C) How could this strengthen the conclusion? The conclusion is about a causation between oval orbits and close encounter with other planets. But this answer choice is correlation; that is, it says that where planets are orbiting a distant star more than one planet are found near the star. I have learned that generally a mere correlation does not strengthen a causation.

(B) why is this answer choice wrong?

Thanks

OlamHafuch

Correlation can never prove causation, so concluding causation on the basis of correlation is a logical flaw, but correlation can strengthen the case, sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot.

batniki1

Well that was a little helpful but I was looking for more... In my opinion, C is a necessary assumption AC: if it is the case that in most cases where planets have been found orbiting a distant star, it is not the case that there are more than one planet... Yeah, if that's true, then there is no way that one planet would have been thrown off by another planet. But I don't see how it would strengthen it... Maybe it would because there are at least two planets, therefore making it possible for one planet to change the other's trajectory...

Now B, i like better... If there was an indication that at least one of the planets in out system was affected by another planet, AND SINCE ALL the planets in our system are in circular orbits, then that wrecks the possibility that a planet could be put into an oval trajectory.... Hence weakening the hypothesis that another planet threw off that other planet in that other system....

Or am I completely misusing the necessary assumption negation method for Strengthening questions?