LR Drill Set 11, Question 10
The incidence of collisions with large pieces of(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- Ahigh-speed collisions with(26 more words not shown)
- Bsome spacecraft launched(19 more words not shown)
- Ctelescopes and radar(22 more words not shown)
- Dcommunications satellites cannot(24 more words not shown)
- Espacecraft orbiting the(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More collisions with big debris up high, but more risk of serious damage down low. We need to explain how both can be true.
My first instinct is to ask whether the conditions in a lower orbit make collisions more dangerous or more concentrated. A smaller orbit might make me imagine objects crowded together, but that picture alone doesn't establish how often spacecraft are hit. We shouldn't solve the question by inventing orbital physics.
Look carefully at the two measurements. The first is collisions with large pieces of debris. The second is serious damage from debris. They are related, but they aren't identical. Counting one class of collisions need not tell us the overall risk of damaging a spacecraft.
What we’re looking for
The blank comes after 'because,' so it needs a reason for the greater danger in low orbits. We can accept that large-debris collisions occur more often in high orbits and still look for another factor that makes lower orbits more dangerous in the relevant way.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Small pieces can cause irreparable damage when the collision is fast enough, and these damaging collisions happen more frequently in low orbits. That supplies a risk the opening comparison leaves out.
The first sentence counts collisions with large debris; A adds high-speed collisions with small debris. Even with fewer of the first kind, a low-orbit spacecraft can face greater serious-damage risk because of the second kind. We don't need to deny the original collision count or claim that all debris is more common down low.
- B
Some missions leave no debris behind. That doesn't explain the difference in risk between lower and higher orbits, both of which can still contain debris left by other missions. We need a reason for the greater danger in one location, not an example of a mission that contributes nothing to either location.
- C
More accurate tracking closer to Earth might help operators identify or avoid a hazard. It does not explain why lower orbits are more dangerous. The answer doesn't connect better detection to increased serious damage, so it cannot fill the explanatory role required by the blank.
- D
Being able to maneuver around hazards would tend to help the low-orbit spacecraft, while the high satellites lack that ability. That difference points toward a safety advantage down low, not the greater danger we're trying to explain. It doesn't supply the needed reason.
- E
Debris being more likely to collide with spacecraft than passing meteoroids doesn't distinguish low orbits from high ones. It compares two kinds of objects rather than the two locations whose risk differs. We still wouldn't know why serious debris damage is a greater risk in the lower orbit.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.