PT105.S4.Q5 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The author draws the conclusion that looking for methane in a planet’s atmosphere is the most reliable way to tell whether or not that planet has life. This is because methane will disappear from the atmosphere unless it’s constantly replenished by living organisms’ biological processes. In other words, methane will only persist in the atmospheres of planets with methane-producing life. The author is claiming that where there is methane, there is life, and where there is no methane, there is no life.

Based on the knowledge that only planets with life will have methane in their atmospheres, the author assumes that all planets with life will have methane in their atmospheres. This means that the author is assuming that all life produces methane.

This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not there are other ways to detect life on a planet doesn’t affect whether or not methane detection is the most reliable way. All the other methods could be unreliable, we don’t know.

This weakens the argument. The author uses “reliable” to mean that methane indicates life, and an absence of methane indicates no life. However, if some living beings don’t produce methane, there could be a planet with no methane that still has life.

This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not detecting methane is practical doesn’t make a difference to whether or not it would be the most reliable means of detecting life.

This does not weaken the argument. The author never specifies how much methane would be required to detect it in the atmosphere; maybe even the tiniest amount is enough. This is like a weaker version of (B), trying to trick you into thinking it does the same thing.

This does not weaken the argument. Just because we haven’t found other planets with methane in their atmospheres, that doesn’t make a difference to whether methane is a reliable indicator of life. It’s not as though we have another verified life-containing planet to test!

PrepTest 105 - Section 4 - Question 5

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action