Q1

[tzyc]

Let me double check why wrong answers are wrong...
A: not for astronomical observers
B: It's not astronomers who believe the existence, but theoreticians. Also there is no numerous recent reports cast doubt, but one specific case make the existence supportable.
C: not revised, but the case makes theoreticians view more realistic.
D: True, but it's not the main idea.

...Is this correct?
Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

(A) I agree 'astronomical observers' is not the same as 'astronomers'. I would also say that the wording of "the crucial event" is a little too extreme. It was a significant milestone in terms of the scientific community considering asteroid satellites, but "THE CRUCIAL event"?

(B) Pretty much. The theoreticians long believed it was THEORETICALLY possible, whereas this says that "observation supports the existence". But you're right that astronomers USED to be more skeptical and NOW they're more convinced.

(C) Perfect!

(D) What new THEORETICAL developments were in the passage? We always thought, theoretically, that asteroid-satellite systems were possible. New OBSERVATIONS, such as Herculina and the avalanche of similar findings that followed, have now left the scientific community thinking, "Hmmm, maybe so?" I would also be scared with how (D) uses the word 'respectable' from line 36, but in a completely opposite context. Line 36 was saying that BELIEVING in these systems is becoming respectable, while (D) is saying that DOUBTING these systems is respectable.

Nice work, though. I'm just offering you my take on them.

[laurenvarg]

E. Threw me off because it says "astronomers agree" about the kind of evidence needed to clearly resolve the issue. It says even astronomers who find the case unconvincing would change their minds if....

Doesn't that suggest that some astronomers already believe there is enough evidence? And not all agree?