PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 10
Recently, photons and neutrinos emitted by a distant(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AEinstein predicted that(12 more words not shown)
- BIf gravity is(22 more words not shown)
- CPhotons and neutrinos(22 more words not shown)
- DPhotons and neutrinos(12 more words not shown)
- EPrior to the(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would arriving together tell us that space is curved?
We don't need a physics lesson to see the missing step. Two kinds of particles from a distant stellar explosion reached Earth at virtually the same time. The author treats that observation as support for Einstein's claim that gravity is a property of space itself, involving the curvature of space. But nothing we've been given yet explains how the arrival times support that account.
I'd want a connection between the observation and the claim. Could the particles arrive together even if Einstein's account were wrong? If so, the shared arrival time would be harder to use as evidence for it.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd look for something like this: arriving together requires space to work the way the theory describes. We don't have to understand the particles themselves to recognize what the argument needs. We need a reason this observation favors the proposed explanation.
Working the answers
- A
This says Einstein predicted the arrival times. It doesn't tell us how that prediction connects to the particular claim about gravity and space. A successful prediction could support the reasoning behind it, but we haven't been told that this prediction came from the theory under discussion. Merely attributing both ideas to Einstein doesn't supply that link.
- BCorrect
This gives us a contrast between what happened and what we would expect if Einstein's claim were false. On that alternative account, photons and neutrinos emitted together by a distant event would reach Earth at different times. Their virtually simultaneous arrival therefore becomes evidence in favor of the claim the author is defending.
That is the missing kind of connection: the arrival pattern now bears on which account of gravity is right. We are strengthening the reasoning, not claiming that we have independently worked out every detail of the particles' journey.
- C
This would work against the argument. If Einstein's claim meant these particles could not be detected on Earth, detecting them would create a problem for his claim. It wouldn't make their detection supporting evidence for it.
- D
Other kinds of particles might have arrived too. That wouldn't by itself tell us what the photons' and neutrinos' arrival times establish about gravity. The argument needs a connection between the observation and the theory, not a claim that no other particles were present.
- E
Being the first possible evidence doesn't make something good evidence. Even if there were no earlier empirical support, we would still have to ask why this arrival pattern supports the claim. And if there were earlier evidence, that wouldn't prevent this observation from adding support. E leaves the missing connection unexplained.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.