Here, I did not think that option B would challenge the hypothesis presented in the passage because lack of craters, to me, didn’t necessarily indicate lack of water. Especially given the “possibly” modifier (highlighted in red) placed where it is placed. What if some other factor caused the lack of craters observed? Like a storm from Saturn itself or something? What did I miss here?
it’s a theory - it’s ok to use words like “possibly”. The water erasing craters is literally part of their hypothesis.
Sure, another factor could have caused it, but the question is asking about their hypothesis - they think it was water.
Thanks for replying Vince. Yeah, the causal link would be: Lack of craters not due to water → No water → No water blasted into space → No E ring. This is a pretty big jump and the “Lack of craters not due to water → No water” link was the one I was hesitant to make. Sometimes ETS does not want you to make such links and stick to the evidence so I have become wary of doing so. According to you, what do you think I should takeaway from this question?
It doesn’t matter if it’s a big jump in our view. That’s the chain of logic that comprises that theory. You take away the water, it all falls apart. There is no logical jump.
1 Like