Question

Directions for questions 37 to 41: Analyze the statements given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Chandra: Hailey's Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope on earth. This has never happened before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.
Surya: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Hailey's Comet very carefully.

Surya challenges Chandra's reasoning by:

• A. Offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Chandra seeks to explain.
• B. Drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Chandra's claims.
• C. Presenting evidence that directly contradicts Chandra's evidence.
• D. Pointing out that Chandra's use of the term "observed" is excessively vague.

Hint:

Check whether Surya denies the flare happened, or instead gives a different reason for why it looks unprecedented, that second move is an alternative explanation.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
Chandra argues that because Hailey's Comet has never before been seen to flare while so far from the Sun, this flare must be an unusual event. We need to see exactly how Surya pushes back on that reasoning.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
In a two-speaker argument question, write out the first speaker's evidence and conclusion separately, then check whether the second speaker denies the evidence, points out a contradiction, or instead offers a different reason for the same evidence.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Chandra's evidence is that this flare has never been recorded before. Chandra's conclusion, built on that evidence, is that the flare must be highly unusual.
Surya does not deny that the flare happened, and does not deny that it had not been recorded before either. Instead, Surya explains why it had not been recorded before: comets are rarely watched when they are far from the Sun, and this one was only caught because an observatory happened to be tracking it closely.
That is a different explanation for the very fact Chandra relies on. Chandra reads "never recorded before" as "this kind of flare is rare", while Surya reads it as "nobody was watching closely enough before to record it". Surya is not contradicting the observation, Surya is reinterpreting why it looks unprecedented. This matches option 1 exactly.
Option 2 would need Surya to point out that two of Chandra's own statements clash with each other, which does not happen here. Option 3 would need Surya to bring in some new fact that directly conflicts with what Chandra observed, but Surya accepts that the flare was seen and was not seen before. Option 4 would need Surya to complain that the word "observed" is unclear, which is not the argument being made. Option 5, dropped in the folded version, would need Surya to accept Chandra's conclusion while attacking the evidence, but Surya rejects the conclusion outright by calling it "Nonsense".

Step 4: Final Answer:
Surya challenges Chandra's reasoning by offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Chandra seeks to explain, option 1.