Earth and Space Sciences - ACT Science
Card 0 of 2928
Above is the deer population of Routt County National Forest between 1905 and 2005. The First White-tail deer were introduced to the forest for hunting in 1905. They are not native to the area, though they thrived in the environment.
White tailed deer eat the seeds of coniferous trees, berries, and an assortment of other plants. They tend to roam in small family herds and stick to areas where water is abundant and is unlikely to freeze completely in the winter.
In 1995, an environmental scientist watched a small herd of deer for ten days, recording their movements and taking note of herd size and stopping place. Below is a chart of his results.
Day Travel distance (mi) Herd size Stopping place 1 21 13 Bear Creek 2 15 13 Yampa Valley 5 19 13 Bear Creek 8 11 10 Gilpin Lake 10 22 10 Yampa Valley
Given the current trend in population, what will the deer population likely be in 2015?
Above is the deer population of Routt County National Forest between 1905 and 2005. The First White-tail deer were introduced to the forest for hunting in 1905. They are not native to the area, though they thrived in the environment.
White tailed deer eat the seeds of coniferous trees, berries, and an assortment of other plants. They tend to roam in small family herds and stick to areas where water is abundant and is unlikely to freeze completely in the winter.
In 1995, an environmental scientist watched a small herd of deer for ten days, recording their movements and taking note of herd size and stopping place. Below is a chart of his results.
| Day | Travel distance (mi) | Herd size | Stopping place |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21 | 13 | Bear Creek |
| 2 | 15 | 13 | Yampa Valley |
| 5 | 19 | 13 | Bear Creek |
| 8 | 11 | 10 | Gilpin Lake |
| 10 | 22 | 10 | Yampa Valley |
Given the current trend in population, what will the deer population likely be in 2015?
The deer population is just under 500 thousand in 2005, and steadily increasing, though not too rapidly. It would stand to reason that ten years later the population will be just over 500,000, given this trend.
This question requires an inference based on data extrapolation, or consdering the current trend and assuming nothing drastic will happen to change that trend. In this case, the data suggests the deer population will continue to gently increase into 2015 and, saving a drastic population drop, will be around 500,000 at that time.
The deer population is just under 500 thousand in 2005, and steadily increasing, though not too rapidly. It would stand to reason that ten years later the population will be just over 500,000, given this trend.
This question requires an inference based on data extrapolation, or consdering the current trend and assuming nothing drastic will happen to change that trend. In this case, the data suggests the deer population will continue to gently increase into 2015 and, saving a drastic population drop, will be around 500,000 at that time.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.7 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features, even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their current state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
Assuming that all observed evidence to this point is correct, if a new theory were proposed to explain the origins of the universe, what feature must it be able to explain?
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.7 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features, even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their current state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
Assuming that all observed evidence to this point is correct, if a new theory were proposed to explain the origins of the universe, what feature must it be able to explain?
The only feature described here that any new theory would have to explain is the same feature that the two scientists' theories attempt to explain: the apparent homogeneity in very distant regions of the universe. All the other answer choices either assume one of the two scientists' theories is true, or are not features that a theory of the origins of the universe would have to explain.
The only feature described here that any new theory would have to explain is the same feature that the two scientists' theories attempt to explain: the apparent homogeneity in very distant regions of the universe. All the other answer choices either assume one of the two scientists' theories is true, or are not features that a theory of the origins of the universe would have to explain.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
If Scientist 1's theory were correct, which of the following would be a worthwhile question for scientists to further study?
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
If Scientist 1's theory were correct, which of the following would be a worthwhile question for scientists to further study?
If Scientist 1's theory were correct, that would mean there was a period of rapid expansion following the Big Bang. This assumption naturally leads to the question: "What caused the fluctuations in the rate of outward expansion directly after the Big Bang?"
Scientist 1's theory already provides a reasoning for the homogeneity of the universe and gives an explanation of the Big Bang. Scientist i's theory does not assume a period of expansion prior to the Big Bang, nor does it require information to travel faster than the speed of light.
If Scientist 1's theory were correct, that would mean there was a period of rapid expansion following the Big Bang. This assumption naturally leads to the question: "What caused the fluctuations in the rate of outward expansion directly after the Big Bang?"
Scientist 1's theory already provides a reasoning for the homogeneity of the universe and gives an explanation of the Big Bang. Scientist i's theory does not assume a period of expansion prior to the Big Bang, nor does it require information to travel faster than the speed of light.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
On what grounds might Scientist 1 criticize Scientist 2's theory?
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
On what grounds might Scientist 1 criticize Scientist 2's theory?
Scientist 2's theory relies on a theoretical period of expansion before the Big Bang occurred, which would be unobservable from our vantage point. Since no experiment or apparatus could be devised that would be able to prove or disprove this theorized cyclic expansion, the theory is untestable, and untestable theories fall outside the realm of natural science.
All the other answer options either misrepresent Scientist 2's theory or ask it to explain features that were not assumed within that theory.
Scientist 2's theory relies on a theoretical period of expansion before the Big Bang occurred, which would be unobservable from our vantage point. Since no experiment or apparatus could be devised that would be able to prove or disprove this theorized cyclic expansion, the theory is untestable, and untestable theories fall outside the realm of natural science.
All the other answer options either misrepresent Scientist 2's theory or ask it to explain features that were not assumed within that theory.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Scientists have long debated the origin of organic molecules on Earth. Organic molecules are those based on the atom carbon, which can form four distinct bonds in contrast to the fewer number allowed in most other non-metals. As a result of this property, carbon can give rise to the enormously complex molecular shapes necessary for life to arise.
Some scientists argue that organic matter was dissolved in water ice on comets, and brought to Earth early in its history. These comets crashed into the early Earth, and deposited carbon-based molecules in copious quantities to the Earth’s surface as their water melted.
In 2014, the first space probe landed on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Suppose that scientists find the following information from 5 distinct samples after landing on the comet. Each sample was taken at a single geographical location, but 5 meters deeper than the last. Sample 1 was taken at a depth of 1 meter below the surface.
Sample # Water Ice? Concentration of Organics 1 No N/A 2 Yes 1 mg/L 3 No N/A 4 Yes 4 mg/L 5 Yes 10 mg/L
These samples were compared to 5 similar samples from the surface of Mars. Scientists posited that this comparison would be meaningful because we know that life does not exist on Mars the same way that it does on Earth. Thus, they are comparing a known non-biological celestial body, Mars, with another celestial body, the comet, which may be seeding life on suitable plants.
Sample # Water Ice? Concentration of Organics 1 No N/A 2 No N/A 3 No N/A 4 No N/A 5 Yes 1 mg/L
The atmosphere on Earth protects the surface from damaging radiation that is abundant in space. Comets lack this atmosphere, and radiation is known to be capable of breaking bonds in complex molecules like organics. Suppose a scientist suggests that no organic molecules could survive the radiation that they would experience on a comet, and thus the measurements in the passage must be due to contamination. Which of the following findings would most directly refute this scientist's claim?
Scientists have long debated the origin of organic molecules on Earth. Organic molecules are those based on the atom carbon, which can form four distinct bonds in contrast to the fewer number allowed in most other non-metals. As a result of this property, carbon can give rise to the enormously complex molecular shapes necessary for life to arise.
Some scientists argue that organic matter was dissolved in water ice on comets, and brought to Earth early in its history. These comets crashed into the early Earth, and deposited carbon-based molecules in copious quantities to the Earth’s surface as their water melted.
In 2014, the first space probe landed on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Suppose that scientists find the following information from 5 distinct samples after landing on the comet. Each sample was taken at a single geographical location, but 5 meters deeper than the last. Sample 1 was taken at a depth of 1 meter below the surface.
| Sample # | Water Ice? | Concentration of Organics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | N/A |
| 2 | Yes | 1 mg/L |
| 3 | No | N/A |
| 4 | Yes | 4 mg/L |
| 5 | Yes | 10 mg/L |
These samples were compared to 5 similar samples from the surface of Mars. Scientists posited that this comparison would be meaningful because we know that life does not exist on Mars the same way that it does on Earth. Thus, they are comparing a known non-biological celestial body, Mars, with another celestial body, the comet, which may be seeding life on suitable plants.
| Sample # | Water Ice? | Concentration of Organics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | N/A |
| 2 | No | N/A |
| 3 | No | N/A |
| 4 | No | N/A |
| 5 | Yes | 1 mg/L |
The atmosphere on Earth protects the surface from damaging radiation that is abundant in space. Comets lack this atmosphere, and radiation is known to be capable of breaking bonds in complex molecules like organics. Suppose a scientist suggests that no organic molecules could survive the radiation that they would experience on a comet, and thus the measurements in the passage must be due to contamination. Which of the following findings would most directly refute this scientist's claim?
The scientist in the question is essentially asserting that there are no organics on the comet, and the measurements are an error. Further, he is specifically asserting that this is would be a consequence of, if nothing else, radiation damage. If organics could exist on the early Earth without a protective atmosphere, that would suggest that his assertion is incorrect.
The scientist in the question is essentially asserting that there are no organics on the comet, and the measurements are an error. Further, he is specifically asserting that this is would be a consequence of, if nothing else, radiation damage. If organics could exist on the early Earth without a protective atmosphere, that would suggest that his assertion is incorrect.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land.
Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier.
Year Average Glacial Movement Sediment movement per year (tons) 1995 1.1 m/day 2.2 1996 1.3 m/day 2.6 1997 1.5 m/day 3.0 1998 1.3 m/day 2.2 2000 1.1 m/day 1.8 2005 1.0 m/day 1.6 2010 0.9 m/day 1.5
Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.
Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.
Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake.
Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.
Sample # Scientist 1: % Brown Chert Scientist 2: % Brown Chert 1 5.2 0.9 2 7.1 1.2 3 6.3 0.4 4 6.5 0.8 5 5.8 1.0
Which of the following findings would best support the hypothesis of Scientist 2?
Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land.
Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier.
| Year | Average Glacial Movement | Sediment movement per year (tons) |
|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 1.1 m/day | 2.2 |
| 1996 | 1.3 m/day | 2.6 |
| 1997 | 1.5 m/day | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 1.3 m/day | 2.2 |
| 2000 | 1.1 m/day | 1.8 |
| 2005 | 1.0 m/day | 1.6 |
| 2010 | 0.9 m/day | 1.5 |
Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.
Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.
Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake.
Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.
| Sample # | Scientist 1: % Brown Chert | Scientist 2: % Brown Chert |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.2 | 0.9 |
| 2 | 7.1 | 1.2 |
| 3 | 6.3 | 0.4 |
| 4 | 6.5 | 0.8 |
| 5 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
Which of the following findings would best support the hypothesis of Scientist 2?
In order for Scientist 2's hypothesis to be correct, there would have to be an increase in the erosive elements that could carry the sediment displaced by the glacier. Volatile weather patterns, like increased wind and rain, would account for an increase in erosion.
In order for Scientist 2's hypothesis to be correct, there would have to be an increase in the erosive elements that could carry the sediment displaced by the glacier. Volatile weather patterns, like increased wind and rain, would account for an increase in erosion.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land.
Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier.
Year Average Glacial Movement Sediment movement per year (tons) 1995 1.1 m/day 2.2 1996 1.3 m/day 2.6 1997 1.5 m/day 3.0 1998 1.3 m/day 2.2 2000 1.1 m/day 1.8 2005 1.0 m/day 1.6 2010 0.9 m/day 1.5
Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.
Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.
Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake.
Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.
Sample # Scientist 1: % Brown Chert Scientist 2: % Brown Chert 1 5.2 0.9 2 7.1 1.2 3 6.3 0.4 4 6.5 0.8 5 5.8 1.0
Could scientists 1 and 2 agree on anything concerning the glacier?
Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land.
Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier.
| Year | Average Glacial Movement | Sediment movement per year (tons) |
|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 1.1 m/day | 2.2 |
| 1996 | 1.3 m/day | 2.6 |
| 1997 | 1.5 m/day | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 1.3 m/day | 2.2 |
| 2000 | 1.1 m/day | 1.8 |
| 2005 | 1.0 m/day | 1.6 |
| 2010 | 0.9 m/day | 1.5 |
Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.
Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.
Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake.
Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.
| Sample # | Scientist 1: % Brown Chert | Scientist 2: % Brown Chert |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.2 | 0.9 |
| 2 | 7.1 | 1.2 |
| 3 | 6.3 | 0.4 |
| 4 | 6.5 | 0.8 |
| 5 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
Could scientists 1 and 2 agree on anything concerning the glacier?
The only reasonable answer is that the brown chert comes from the glacier. All other answers would require inference based on information that cannot be found in the question. They can at least agree that the only way for the sediment containing brown chert, which can only naturally be found in places higher than the lake, to be found in the lake itself is for the glacier to have moved it.
The only reasonable answer is that the brown chert comes from the glacier. All other answers would require inference based on information that cannot be found in the question. They can at least agree that the only way for the sediment containing brown chert, which can only naturally be found in places higher than the lake, to be found in the lake itself is for the glacier to have moved it.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
Which of the following, if true, would most support Scientist 2's claim?
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
Which of the following, if true, would most support Scientist 2's claim?
Scientist 2's theory depends upon a view of the universe in which the Big Bang was preceded by other expansion events. The only answer choice that supports this view is the one that states, "New cosmological evidence suggests a period of expansion that began prior to the Big Bang."
Widespread acceptance of a theory does not help provide evidence ot support it. The other answer choices do not support Scientist 2's theory, and in some cases undermine it.
Scientist 2's theory depends upon a view of the universe in which the Big Bang was preceded by other expansion events. The only answer choice that supports this view is the one that states, "New cosmological evidence suggests a period of expansion that began prior to the Big Bang."
Widespread acceptance of a theory does not help provide evidence ot support it. The other answer choices do not support Scientist 2's theory, and in some cases undermine it.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
Which of the following best states the basis for the belief of Scientist 1?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
Which of the following best states the basis for the belief of Scientist 1?
Scientist 1 believes that "a part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon." Further, this piece was taken from the Earth's mantle as discussed in the sentence "the rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle."
Scientist 1 believes that "a part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon." Further, this piece was taken from the Earth's mantle as discussed in the sentence "the rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
When it comes to the Moon, both scientists agree that __________.
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
When it comes to the Moon, both scientists agree that __________.
Most of the answer choices list information that is factual stated in the first paragraph. "The Moon orbits around the Earth" is a piece of information that can be inferred to be true after reading both scientist's beliefs.
Most of the answer choices list information that is factual stated in the first paragraph. "The Moon orbits around the Earth" is a piece of information that can be inferred to be true after reading both scientist's beliefs.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
Scientist 2 uses what piece of detail to support his overall viewpoint?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
Scientist 2 uses what piece of detail to support his overall viewpoint?
The fact that the lunar rocks are burnt is a detail discussed by Scientist 2 to support his viewpoint. All of the other options are details either discussed by Scientist 1 or stated in the first paragraph.
The fact that the lunar rocks are burnt is a detail discussed by Scientist 2 to support his viewpoint. All of the other options are details either discussed by Scientist 1 or stated in the first paragraph.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What is the main conflicting viewpoint between Scientist 1 or Scientist 2?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What is the main conflicting viewpoint between Scientist 1 or Scientist 2?
After reading each Scientist's viewpoint, it is clear Scientist 1 believes the Moon was formed from just the Earth, while Scientist 2 states that the "collective piece" formed from the Earth and another planet created the Moon.
After reading each Scientist's viewpoint, it is clear Scientist 1 believes the Moon was formed from just the Earth, while Scientist 2 states that the "collective piece" formed from the Earth and another planet created the Moon.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What do both the viewpoint of Scientist 1 and the viewpoint of Scientist 2 have in common?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What do both the viewpoint of Scientist 1 and the viewpoint of Scientist 2 have in common?
Both Scientists agree pieces of the Earth were used to create the Moon. The viewpoints differ on if the Earth was solely used as opposed to the Earth and an additional planet.
Both Scientists agree pieces of the Earth were used to create the Moon. The viewpoints differ on if the Earth was solely used as opposed to the Earth and an additional planet.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.7 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features, even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their current state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine both scientists' positions?
According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.7 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.
Scientist 1
In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features, even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their current state.
Scientist 2
Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.
Which of the following, if true, would undermine both scientists' positions?
Both scientists' theories depend on the event of the Big Bang instantiating some set of conditions in the universe. If the Big Bang did not occur, and the universe has been constantly expanding forever, then neither theory would make sense.
The other answer choices are either irrelevant or would only undermine one scientist's argument. Both scientists suggest that older galaxies may be receding due to universal expansion. Scientist 1 argues that the Big Bang was the initial event of the universe; this statement would only weaken Scientist 2's argument. Constant deceleration would deny the inflation period hypothesized by Scientist 1, but support Scientist 2. The exact moment of the Big Bang does not affect either scientist's argument.
Both scientists' theories depend on the event of the Big Bang instantiating some set of conditions in the universe. If the Big Bang did not occur, and the universe has been constantly expanding forever, then neither theory would make sense.
The other answer choices are either irrelevant or would only undermine one scientist's argument. Both scientists suggest that older galaxies may be receding due to universal expansion. Scientist 1 argues that the Big Bang was the initial event of the universe; this statement would only weaken Scientist 2's argument. Constant deceleration would deny the inflation period hypothesized by Scientist 1, but support Scientist 2. The exact moment of the Big Bang does not affect either scientist's argument.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
If research concluded that the Moon's composition was the same as the Earth's composition, which viewpoint would this support?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
If research concluded that the Moon's composition was the same as the Earth's composition, which viewpoint would this support?
Scientist 1 believes the Moon was created solely from the Earth. This would be supported if the composition of the Moon was the same as the Earth. Scientist 2 believes the Earth and another planet merged to create the Moon; therefore Scientist 2 would want to see data showing the Moon had some of Earth's composition, but not identical.
Scientist 1 believes the Moon was created solely from the Earth. This would be supported if the composition of the Moon was the same as the Earth. Scientist 2 believes the Earth and another planet merged to create the Moon; therefore Scientist 2 would want to see data showing the Moon had some of Earth's composition, but not identical.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What piece of information would help support Scientist 1's point of view?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What piece of information would help support Scientist 1's point of view?
Scientist 1 believes the Moon is made up of solely material from the Earth; therefore similar magnetic fields would suport this notion.
Scientist 1 believes the Moon is made up of solely material from the Earth; therefore similar magnetic fields would suport this notion.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What evidence listed below could be used to support the viewpoints of both scientists?
Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.
Scientist 1
The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.
Scientist 2
The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.
What evidence listed below could be used to support the viewpoints of both scientists?
The Pacific Ocean Basin can support the idea that part of the Earth broke off to create the Moon. The Pacific Ocean Basin can also support the idea that the Earth collided with another planet and resulted in a piece of the Earth breaking off.
The Pacific Ocean Basin can support the idea that part of the Earth broke off to create the Moon. The Pacific Ocean Basin can also support the idea that the Earth collided with another planet and resulted in a piece of the Earth breaking off.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.
Scientist 1
Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.
Scientist 2
Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.
Summarize the differences between the scientists' theories.
Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.
Scientist 1
Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.
Scientist 2
Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.
Summarize the differences between the scientists' theories.
Both scientists acknowledge that global warming has occurred over the past century, however, scientist 1 believes global warming is a natural part of the earth's orbital variances while scientist 2 believes that man has contributed to the increase in temperatures.
Both scientists acknowledge that global warming has occurred over the past century, however, scientist 1 believes global warming is a natural part of the earth's orbital variances while scientist 2 believes that man has contributed to the increase in temperatures.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.
Scientist 1
Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.
Scientist 2
Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.
What data would support Scientist 1's theory?
Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.
Scientist 1
Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.
Scientist 2
Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.
What data would support Scientist 1's theory?
Because the orbital variance changes so slowly (over thousands of years), it will be necessary to compare the average temperature change over a very long period of time. A diagram depicting the orbital variances may be interesting, however, it is not informative for climate change.
Because the orbital variance changes so slowly (over thousands of years), it will be necessary to compare the average temperature change over a very long period of time. A diagram depicting the orbital variances may be interesting, however, it is not informative for climate change.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.
Scientist 1
Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.
Scientist 2
Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.
Assume that both Scientist 1 and Scientist 2 were correct. How would temperature change over the next 20,000 years?
Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.
Scientist 1
Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.
Scientist 2
Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.
Assume that both Scientist 1 and Scientist 2 were correct. How would temperature change over the next 20,000 years?
A situation in which the temperature continues to increase, but the rate of increase is correlated with changes in the earth's orbit suggests that both scientists are correct. A constant increase in temperature suggests Scientist 2 is correct, while increased and decreased temperature suggests that Scientist 1 is correct.
A situation in which the temperature continues to increase, but the rate of increase is correlated with changes in the earth's orbit suggests that both scientists are correct. A constant increase in temperature suggests Scientist 2 is correct, while increased and decreased temperature suggests that Scientist 1 is correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above