PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 24
The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AMost supernova remnants(9 more words not shown)
- BSensitive astronomical instruments(14 more words not shown)
- CThe supernova of(12 more words not shown)
- DSeveral important features(11 more words not shown)
- ESome neutron stars(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The theory predicts a neutron star after a supernova of this size, but the search has found no sign of one. That is interesting. Does it establish that the star is not there?
Even very sensitive instruments can leave us with that question. Perhaps this neutron star exists but our tools have failed to detect its pulse of radiation. The argument goes from no evidence of the predicted object to a conclusion that the prediction was wrong.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen that move, I would want a reason to trust the search's ability to find the star. If we would have detected it had it been present, failing to detect it would be good evidence against its presence. We need support for that connection, rather than simply another reminder that nothing was found.
Working the answers
- A
Finding neutron stars near most detected supernova remnants fits the relationship the theory describes. It does not establish that the 1987 event is an exception. Also, “most” having nearby neutron stars does not itself prove that any of the others lack them. A gives no new reason to think the unsuccessful search here establishes absence.
- BCorrect
The instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away. That supports confidence that the 1987 location is within their reach and makes the suggestion that this star simply escaped detection less persuasive. It does not guarantee detection under every possible circumstance, but it gives us relevant evidence of the tools' capabilities. That makes the missing signal a stronger reason to question the theory's prediction.
- C
Being the first supernova observed in progress tells us when scientists witnessed an event, not how reliably their instruments can detect a neutron star afterward. It does not strengthen the inference from this missing signal to a missing star.
- D
Correct predictions about other features give the theory some support. They do not help show that its neutron-star prediction is wrong. A theory could succeed on some features and fail on another, but D offers no evidence of the claimed failure.
- E
Neutron stars having other causes does not establish that these supernovas sometimes fail to produce them. The theory says a supernova of the specified size produces a neutron star, not that every neutron star must come from a supernova. E concerns the other direction.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.