Recent observations suggest that small, earthlike worlds form a very low percentage of the planets orbiting stars in the galaxy other than the sun. Of over two hundred planets that astronomers have detected around other stars, almost all are hundreds of times larger and heavier than the earth and orbit stars much smaller than the sun.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the above justification of the claim that earthlike worlds form a low percentage of the total number of planets?
There are millions of planets orbiting stars around which astronomers have not attempted to detect planets.
The best current astronomical theories predict that almost all planets around other stars are probably hundreds of times larger than the earth.
A planet orbiting a star similar to the sun would be more likely to be earthlike in size than would a planet orbiting a much smaller star.
The smaller a planet is relative to the star it orbits, the more difficult it is for astronomers to detect.
The observations would have detected any small, earthlike worlds orbiting the stars around which larger planets have been detected.
因:探测了200多颗行星都比地球大,其恒星都比太阳小;
果:银河系里小型的类地行星所占比例非常低;
(1)攻击结论:它果,干扰因素导致结果不成立;(2)攻击前提:切断因果,这200多颗行星数据和银河系里类地行星比例没有任何关系,其实也是样本数据代表性的问题;
秒选了A…现在再看也不知道翻译的对不对:有数百万的行星正环绕着那些(科学家们还没有开始探测它周围行星的)恒星,感觉是缺少了很多关键信息来削弱结论,1)这些数百万行星是不是银河系的?题中的低百分比限制在银河系内;2)这些还没开始探测的行星大小和重量未知,即无法判断最终比例的走向,如果说“这数百万没有开始探测的行星里理论上还有一大波类地行星”,就可以削弱了吧
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论