Q9 - The only physical factor

[zaidjawed]

Hey Guys,
Could someone chime in and help me through this one? I seem to have eliminated A,B,C and D but can't seem to confidently say that I understand E.

The argument here was about the weight of the "fuel", not specifically about the weight of the "tanks" required to carry the fuel. Hence, I don't really get E,rather, I don't see how its applicable.

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

We have an argument that the physical factor preventing human journey to Mars has been fixed.

To have enough full for the trip to and from Mars, it would make the spacecraft too heavy to lift off. But, we now have a device that will allow us to not have to carry the fuel for the trip back from Mars. We will use this device that churns out fuel from the atmosphere of Mars.

That is great news, but we still have not fully resolved this weight issue of the spacecraft. For the arguer to claim that we have removed this physical barrier, the arguer must assume that this new device weighs less than what the conventional fuel would have been on this spacecraft for return trip from Mars to Earth.

[maryadkins]

Yes! Great explanation, thanks.

So just to sum it up in slightly different words:

Carrying the fuel from here was too heavy. Say the extra fuel to get back weighed 100 pounds. Now, instead of carrying that fuel, the spacecraft is going to carry a device. But if the device ALSO weighs 100 pounds or heaven forbid more, what good will that do?

(And to your point: it's "tanks of fuel" not just tanks--so it's referencing the weight of the actual fuel here.)

That's (E).

[zaidjawed]

Thanks timmydoeslsat and Mary!

[Yu440]

Hi,

I eliminated C, but just to make sure, is it because even if the device might take up the crew's living space, it does not mean there won't be any space left? Or do we eliminate answer C simply because it's not about weight therefore it's irrelevant?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

We're evaluating whether or not it's possible for people to go to Mars in a spacecraft that carries the refilling device.

If we negate (C), it says that the device would take up some of the crew's living space.

Does that badly weaken the argument?
Does that strongly suggest that it ISN'T possible to go to Mars in this spacecraft?

No, it just sounds like we're causing a minor inconvenience to the crew.

If (C) had said
(C) The device for manufacturing fuel would not take up all of the crew's living space
then it would be correct