Scientists have long searched for magnetic monopoles

[JakeL840]

Hi all,

First post so please go easy on me. I've already searched + read the other post about this specific question, but it didn't really help. Here's the question again:

Scientists have long searched for magnetic monopoles, hypothetical particles left over from the Big Bang. In 1982, a detector at Stanford recorded a single event that seemed to be the passage of a monopole. However, despite the fact that the Stanford experimental design has withstood all serious challenges, no other detectors have ever recorded similar events. Even though one team of physicists has recently claimed to have found indirect evidence that magnetic monopoles must exist, the consensus of the physics community is that monopoles, if they do exist, have not yet been discovered.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


The first is a difficulty that contradicts the status quo view of the majority of physicists; the second is that status quo view.

The first is a comment that supports a minority position among physicists; the second is an alternative to that minority position.

The first is evidence strengthening an unrepeated experimental result; the second is a claim supported by that evidence.

The first is an assertion that undermines a hypothesis commonly thought to be unproven; the second is that hypothesis.

The first is a corroboration of an assertion that lacks experimental support; the second is that assertion.


My question is that how can the answer be C when the second part says "the second is a claim supported by that evidence." The passage clearly says indirect evidence, which logically means NOT the Stanford studies! Wouldn't those studies be DIRECT evidence??

Thanks in advance!

[JakeL840]

Bump?

[JakeL840]

Any help at all?

[tim]

First, be careful bumping questions. Every time you do that it puts the question at the absolute end of the queue for us to answer. Bumping a question is the most effective way to cause a delay in getting your question answered.

Second, please note that the second bold statement is "magnetic monopoles must exist". This is actually supported by the Stanford experiment. Your analysis appears to have been thrown off by the fact that you bolded too much when you copied the problem.