Although fullerenes--spherical molecules made entirely of carbon--were first found in the laboratory, they have since been found in nature, formed in fissures of the rare mineral shungite. Since laboratory synthesis of fullerenes requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure, this discovery should give geologists a test case for evaluating hypotheses about the state of the Earth's crust at the time these naturally occurring fullerenes were formed.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
Confirming that the shungite genuinely contained fullerenes took careful experimentation.
Some fullerenes have also been found on the remains of a small meteorite that collided with a spacecraft.
The mineral shungite itself contains large amounts of carbon, from which the fullerenes apparently formed.
The naturally occurring fullerenes are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure.
Shungite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions.
原先选的b,想法是既然材料从太空来,所以是外来的,不能用来推测它的掉落地的地址情况,不知道为啥不能选
我也错选了B,但是后来想到:1.外太空的东西,文章没有说它跑到地球上来了 2.meteorite和airspace撞击时也会产生压力和温度,和实验室的是一样的 基于以上两点,并不能削弱文章的argument。
不知道我的想法有没有帮助到你呢
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论