#1- Global Reference, Must Be True, Main Point

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[JSLSAT]

Hi PowerScore,

Could someone explain how "E" is correct? It's tough to assume that "astronomers agree" about the additional evidence needed, listed in paragraph 5, as it seems that those are just the astronomers who are "[unconvinced]". I initially chose A because, though it required a bit of a logical leap to say they were "waiting for" the event and that it's "the crucial event" that was "convincing", it feels more supported by the content of the passage.

Thanks in advance!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi JSLSAT,

Good question. The passage tells us "even astronomers who find the case for asteroid satellites unconvincing at present" agree about what evidence is needed; that isn't only the astronomers who are unconvinced, it is also the astronomers who are unconvinced. Look at the question again with that framing, and see if it makes a bit more sense to you.

[DVD]

that isn't only the astronomers who are unconvinced, it is also the astronomers who are unconvinced. Look at the question again with that framing, and see if it makes a bit more sense to you.

The passage says that, despite the fact ("yet") that too many secondary occultations were reported for all of them to be true, even the unconvinced astronomers would be convinced if a photoelectric record were made.
On the other hand, the convinced astronomers by definition don't need the photoelectric record, because they're already convinced.
Therefore, astronomers don't agree on "the kind of evidence needed to clearly resolve the issue". In fact, the unconvinced astronomers need the photoelectric record, while the convinced astronomers don't need anything else.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi DVD,

It sounds like you are misreading the word "resolve." I believe that you understand resolve to mean something like 'prove to oneself'.' However resolve always indicates that there is a conflict: two or more opposing sides or apparently contradictory facts. "clearly resolve the issue" here means to settle the debate for both sides. The convinced astronomers do agree that such evidence would resolve the issue: i.e. bring the unconvinced astronomers over to their side.

[DVD]

The convinced astronomers do agree that such evidence would resolve the issue: i.e. bring the unconvinced astronomers over to their side.

Hi Francis,

what in the text makes you think that the convinced astronomers do agree that such evidence would resolve the issue: i.e. bring the unconvinced astronomers over to their side?

[Adam Tyson]

Don't get too hung up on looking for perfect evidence for a perfect answer, DVD! We want the best answer from among those provided, and E passes that test. Is it possible that there is an astronomer, currently convinced that there could be stable asteroid-satellite systems, who would say "I don't think a photoelectric record of a well-behaved secondary event would bring the unconvinced folks over to my side"? Sure, it's possible. Is it likely, especially when the author has told us (and we should accept his claims as true unless told otherwise) that such evidence would change the minds of all those currently not convinced? Not very. If the unconvinced folks say that evidence would change their minds, then we shouldn't go to any extraordinary lengths to imagine some astronomer saying "they're lying!"

E is an imperfect answer, certainly, but it is the closest thing to the main point of this passage that we have been offered. Might it have been better if it said something like "Some evidence has suggested that stable asteroid-satellite systems are not only theoretically possible, but may actually exist, although some astronomers remain unconvinced and require certain other evidence before they would change their minds"? I think so. But even that is imperfect, and we could make a case against it.

Go with the best answer, and don't waste any time or effort looking for a perfect answer. The instructions don't say anything about the answers being perfect, or even good, and they also don't say anything about picking answers that are "right", only the one that is the best (of the five presented). Letting go of perfection will allow you to move more quickly, confidently, and accurately through the entire test.

Good luck!

[sblack1998]

Can I get feedback on why A is wrong? I was choosing between A and E and ended up choosing A because E said, "astronomers agree." I have read the thread on this issue but would like to be able to identify what I missed in A.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi sblack,

One thing to keep an eye on with Main Point answers in Reading Comprehension is how strongly the author has taken a side in the passage. Has the author made a definitive conclusion? Or is the author leaving open the possibility that their conclusion might be wrong? In this passage, the author suggests, but does not conclude definitively, that asteroids can have satellites. We can tell this from the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Observations now suggest that asteroid satellites may exist not only in theory but also in reality." The author thinks the evidence is pointing in the direction of what theoreticians postulate in their theories, but hasn't made an absolute conclusion that this is the case. This is also supported by the language used to describe Herculina: "The most convincing such report concerns the
asteroid Herculina." It's the "most convincing" report, but that doesn't mean the question is now fully determined.

The problem with answer choice A is that it treats the author's conclusion (and the evidence from Herculina) as being too definitive. It calls Herculina "the crucial event...to establish" the author's conclusion. It's an important event, for sure. But not necessarily the final, or only, important event to look at ("crucial"). Herculina supports the author's conclusion, but doesn't necessarily definitively "establish" it. The other problem with answer choice A is that the third paragraph shows that not all astronomers have been convinced yet, whereas answer choice A treats these "astronomical observers" as being on the side of the author and the theoreticians.

I hope this helps!

[sqmusgrave]

I was torn between A and E but ultimately eliminated E because I thought the second part could be seen as contradicting the passage. This is because some astronomers seem persuaded enough by the event to accept the satellite theory, but some are not and require more evidence. Thus they do not agree on what needs to be done to resolve the issue because there's a sub-group who requires more stringent proof.
Can someone explain why this thought process is wrong?
Thanks!