PT91.S2.Q21 - Many scientist hypothesize that there is...

Comments

• leoxnardx Member

  November 2021 82 karma

  What is the theory that is not adequately accounted for? The "theory' in AC C seems to be something that the question stem does not talk about. We dont know if the invisible spectrum theory "adequately account" for anything, we just know that relativity accounts for star's visibility better.

  Negating E destroys the argument. If relativity relies on invisible light spectrum to account completely for the phenomenon, we cannot disregard invisible spectrum at all, since saying that invisible light spectrum shouldn't be consider would also make relativity theory irrelevant
• maxjab00 Member

  November 2021 35 karma

  The main argument of this question is:

  • Scientists use "light absorbing medium" to explain dim stars.
  • Einstein's relativity already explains why stars are dim.
  • Therefore Scientists are wrong.

  This a is necessary assumption question, so we had to find something that the argument depends on.

  C. sounds more like a sufficient assumption instead of necessary one. It is basically saying that:

  • If theory explains phenomenon and theory not a part of an existing theory -> Theory is correct.

  • New theory is a part of existing theory

  • Therefore, new theory is incorrect

  This would indeed ruin the argument, but is it necessary? No, it isn't necessary because that is not the only "rule" you can come up with to lead to the conclusion.

  E. does give us a necessary assumption. What if Einstein's relativity did indeed talk about light absorbing mediums? Wouldn't that ruin the argument? The author is saying that the new hypothesis is wrong because relativity already explains the answer. For the theory about light absorbing mediums to be wrong, that means that relativity (which the author says is right) must not include anything about light absorbing mediums. That is the necessary assumption that the author is making.