PrepTest 131

Incorrect. In correlating supernovae and neutron stars, this answer supports the current theory, if anything.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Current theory - A supernova of a certain size leaves a neutron star behind
The current theory should apply to the 1987 supernova, but current instruments haven't detected a neutron star
Conclusion - The current theory is wrong

Answer Anticipation:
Let's start by thinking about what would disprove the current theory. It states that a supernova of the size of the one in 1987 should leave a neutron star behind. So if that supernova didn't leave a neutron star behind, then the theory is disproved.

Do the premises establish that there isn't a neutron star? Nope—just that scientists haven't been able to detect one with current equipment. Maybe it's there, but that equipment isn't sensitive enough to find it.

To strengthen this argument, we should find an answer that establishes the current equipment should be strong enough to detect a neutron star by this supernova if it exists.

Answer Explanation:
This answer suggests that the current equipment is sensitive enough to detect a neutron star by the 1987 supernova, if one existed, since it can detect them farther away. This answer provides evidence that the 1987 supernova didn't leave behind a neutron star, thus undermining the current theory and supporting the conclusion stating this theory is wrong.

Key Takeaway:
One way to identify a flaw in an argument is to start by considering just the conclusion and what would be sufficient to justify it. Then, see where the premises fall short of hitting that mark. Here, we started by thinking about what would disprove the current theory, and then we compared that to what was actually established, allowing us to find the gap in the reasoning.

Incorrect. This has nothing to do with a neutron star or the current equipment for detecting one, so it adds nothing to the argument.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer lends support to the current theory, whereas the conclusion of the argument is that it's wrong.

Incorrect. Since there's no detectable neutron star here, what is true of other neutron stars is out of scope. The current theory is that a neutron star is a necessary sign of a supernova (Supernova → Neutron star), not a sufficient one, so there being other sources of neutron stars doesn't affect this argument.