- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Feb 06, 2024
- Fri Jul 19, 2024 12:48 pm
#107720
Hey Jwooon,
When I read stimuli with abstract ideas like 'destructive geophysical processes', I like to name an example to better help me understand the information. For this question, let's say a destructive geophysical process is a volcanic eruption.
The stimulus says that impact craters have been found all over the globe, but the most craters have been found in places where there aren't destructive phenomenon like volcanic eruptions. The increased number of craters in these areas must be explained by the fact that there are less destructive events.
There are a lot of reasons there are more craters in geologically stable areas - maybe that's just where the meteors always hit, for example. However, if we want to justify the conclusion that the author drew, which is that the only reason there are more craters in these areas is because of the lack of destructive processes, then we need to find an answer choice which shows that meteors are hitting all over Earth, and the only reason we don't see craters in fairly equal distribution is because in some areas, geological phenomenon (like a volcanic eruption or earthquake) is destroying the evidence of the craters. Answer choice (D) correctly brings in this information.
In comparison, if we added answer choice (A) to the stimulus, we still wouldn't justify the conclusion. (A) provides us with an interesting tidbit, but it does not say that this event ever even happens. Maybe meteors, like lightning, never strike the same place twice. If that is the case, how do we explain why geologically stable locations have more craters than others? Even if meteors do often hit the same spots, why are there more of these spots in areas without volcanic eruptions and earthquakes then those with?
hope that helps!
When I read stimuli with abstract ideas like 'destructive geophysical processes', I like to name an example to better help me understand the information. For this question, let's say a destructive geophysical process is a volcanic eruption.
The stimulus says that impact craters have been found all over the globe, but the most craters have been found in places where there aren't destructive phenomenon like volcanic eruptions. The increased number of craters in these areas must be explained by the fact that there are less destructive events.
There are a lot of reasons there are more craters in geologically stable areas - maybe that's just where the meteors always hit, for example. However, if we want to justify the conclusion that the author drew, which is that the only reason there are more craters in these areas is because of the lack of destructive processes, then we need to find an answer choice which shows that meteors are hitting all over Earth, and the only reason we don't see craters in fairly equal distribution is because in some areas, geological phenomenon (like a volcanic eruption or earthquake) is destroying the evidence of the craters. Answer choice (D) correctly brings in this information.
In comparison, if we added answer choice (A) to the stimulus, we still wouldn't justify the conclusion. (A) provides us with an interesting tidbit, but it does not say that this event ever even happens. Maybe meteors, like lightning, never strike the same place twice. If that is the case, how do we explain why geologically stable locations have more craters than others? Even if meteors do often hit the same spots, why are there more of these spots in areas without volcanic eruptions and earthquakes then those with?
hope that helps!
