Q18 - The consensus among astronomers

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Role/Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Astronomers say pulsars are made of neutrons. The author disagrees, saying they could be made of a neutron shell with a delicious quark center. Gooey!

Answer Anticipation:
The statement in question is part of the author's rebuttal to the astronomers's conclusion, so I'm looking for an answer reflecting that even if I don’t understand all the details!

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Definitely survives a first pass since this answer states it's an explanation against the all-neutron theory. After reading the rest, I'd come back to it and see that it matches the author's argument and select it.

(B) The author is making the claim that pulsars could be made of quarks; there's no challenge to it, and the statement in question is definitely part of the author's argument.

(C) Out of scope. There's nothing suggesting astronomers aren't recognizing pulsars.

(D) It's not a new finding; it's a hypothetical the author suggests as an alternative. Before I'd pick an answer about it being a finding, I'd want to see a study or observation of reality.

(E) Out of scope. No one is debating the mass (the only characteristic really discussed is charge).

Takeaway/Pattern:
Don't get lost in the details! If you know, generally, which side of the debate the statement in question comes from, and can generally describe how that argument works, it should be enough to get a question like this correct. The science is there to distract! It won't be relevant to the logic.

#officialexplanation

[JorieB701]

My brain just cannot wrap itself around this stimulus. Can someone please explain what's going on? I've never been so shocked by a correct answer.