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.
错选B,我的理解:选项中提到F可以在remains of a small meteorite中找到,但题目讲的是在crust的the rare mineral shungite的F,不是一个东西?我脑补以为是说题目里的F可能由collision得到,所以不一定是需要那些温度和压力的,想多了。。。但是我感觉D也有点过度推理啊,为什么unknown就是和lab的不一样了,所以默认lab里都弄出来这个东西了,structure就是known的吗?
选项有几个词some,remains of a small meteorite,如果假设只有微量的fullerenes ,比如几毫克是在meteorite上,对推测根本不会造成影响,依然可以通过实验室推断地球的情况。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论