I am having trouble understanding this example. We are applying block of 4 between sentence 1 (before semicolon) and sentence 2 (after semicolon). Contrast is hinted between inner planets and outer planets. The inner planets are small and dense. Also, if we see ‘and’ suggest support between small and dense.
Now, according to block of 4 these outer planets should be large and thin (Till here I understand). However, the despite shows a contrast between the two blanks. So I believe the blanks should be ‘despite their large size they are dense’.
Let me know where am I wrong.
The inner plants are relatively small and dense.
Okay so that means inner plants are smaller and denser.
I see a semicolon, so the sentence I’m about to read should reflect the same idea. ( Inner planets are smaller and denser, or in other words, outer planets are larger and thinner)
The planetary material of outer planets are ____. (blank 2). this should be thinner, so we choose sparse. What do we know about the size of the outer planets? They’re bigger so its prodigious.
To point out the flaw in your answer, it contradicts the statement of earlier, instead of supporting. Earlier it implicity said outer planets are largers and thinner, so how can you the latter part of the sentence claim that these outer planets are dense? It doesn’t make sense.
Now let’s talk about “despite”.
You mentioned that there should be a contrast between the two blanks? Agreed. It goes along the “logic” that larger planets would seem to be dense. So despite their large size, the outer planets are actually thin. Now this “logic”, is not outside knowledge. In fact, I’ve inferred it from the word “despite”. I know for a fact that outer planets are larger and thinner ( from the part before semicolon), and I cannot change this fact. This fact must be supported in the next half of sentence. The word despite is indeed a contrast as it contradicts the “logic”. It basically says that while these outer planets are big, they are in fact dense ( in contrast to their logic).
