Question

Directions for questions 37 to 41: Analyze the statements given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Chandra: Hailey's Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope on earth. This has never happened before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.
Surya: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Hailey's Comet very carefully.

Surya challenges Chandra's reasoning by:

• A. Offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Chandra seeks to explain.
• B. Drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Chandra's claims.
• C. Presenting evidence that directly contradicts Chandra's evidence.
• D. Pointing out that Chandra's use of the term "observed" is excessively vague.

Hint:

Check whether Surya denies the flare happened, or instead gives a different reason for why it looks unprecedented, that second move is an alternative explanation.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Chandra's argument runs: this flare has never been recorded before, so it must be a rare event. To see how Surya pushes back, check each option against what Surya actually says.

1. Offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Chandra seeks to explain: Surya says comets far from the Sun are rarely watched, and this flare was caught only because an observatory was tracking it closely. That is a different reason for why the flare had never been recorded before, matching this option.
2. Drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Chandra's claims: Surya never says Chandra contradicted herself, so this does not fit.
3. Presenting evidence that directly contradicts Chandra's evidence: Surya does not deny the flare happened or that it was unrecorded before, so there is no contradicting evidence here.
4. Pointing out that Chandra's use of the term observed is excessively vague: Surya never questions the word "observed", so this is not the challenge being raised.

Surya's whole point is that a lack of past sightings can happen simply because nobody was watching, not because the event itself is unusual. That is exactly an alternative explanation for Chandra's evidence, which is option 1.

Let's summarize:

• Chandra treats "never recorded before" as proof the flare is rare.
• Surya offers a competing reason for the same fact: comets that far out are rarely watched.
• Surya never denies the observation itself, so this is not a direct contradiction, it is an alternative explanation.

So Surya challenges Chandra's reasoning by offering an alternative explanation for the evidence, option 1.