#24 - In Peru, ancient disturbances in the dark surface

[dshen123]

I thought investigator's quoted sentences including "intersected a sunburst pattern" were evidence that discredit the alternative explanation(they were Inca roads).
So what the investigator said were NOT evidence? Is it because they were presented as questions instead of statements?


Please help!!!! TY

[Adam Tyson]

The investigator is arguing that the lines are alien landing strips by raising doubts about one alternative possibility, that they were Inca roads. Their method of arguing against Inca roads is by asking a bunch of questions that are meant to show that it would be silly to claim that these are roads. In other words, they are pointing out that it makes no sense for them to be roads. None of that is really evidence of alien landing strips, at least not directly. But it could be described as evidence against roads.

The two answer choices that mention evidence, though, are incorrect. A is wrong because the investigator isn't rejecting any evidence. They are using evidence to reject a conclusion. B is wrong in part because there is no indication that any of the evidence is "newly discovered" or that the investigator is the one who discovered it. They are just interpreting that evidence against one possible explanation and in favor of another.