Q24 - The supernova event of 1987

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So, why can’t we find the neutron star? The author’s argument for why we can’t find it is that "current theory is wrong." But maybe there’s another explanation! Maybe the reason why we can’t find it is that our technology isn’t sophisticated enough yet. If that were true, that would be a serious weakness in the argument. To strengthen the argument all we need to do is find an answer choice that ensures that our technology is sophisticated enough to detect such a neutron star. Answer choice (B) does this nicely.

(A) is irrelevant to the argument. Having a neutron star nearby is not really the same thing as having a supernova produce a neutron star. Additionally, even if the word nearby was replaced with the word within, just because most supernova remnants have neutron stars doesn’t tell us why this one doesn’t.
(B) strengthens the argument by removing an alternative explanation for why we hadn’t found the neutron star.
(C) Is irrelevant to the argument. Whether it was the first to be observed in progress does not strengthen the conclusion that the current theory is wrong.
(D) Is somewhat tempting. But only because it’s relevant. The problem is that this answer choice undermines the argument by suggesting that maybe current theory gets some things right.
(E) Is not very helpful but has all the right buzzwords. Multiple causes of neutron stars only makes the matter more confusing. To claim that current theory is incorrect because it predicts a neutron star in a place that we haven’t found one would not benefit to there being multiple causes of neutron starts.

[lsat42010]

So, why can’t we find the neutron star? The author’s argument for why we can’t find it is that "current theory is wrong." But maybe there’s another explanation! Maybe the reason why we can’t find it is that our technology isn’t sophisticated enough yet. If that were true, that would be a serious weakness in the argument. To strengthen the argument all we need to do is find an answer choice that ensures that our technology is sophisticated enough to detect such a neutron star. Answer choice (B) does this nicely.

(A) is irrelevant to the argument. Having a neutron star nearby is not really the same thing as having a supernova produce a neutron star. Additionally, even if the word nearby was replaced with the word within, just because most supernova remnants have neutron stars doesn’t tell us why this one doesn’t.
(B) strengthens the argument by removing an alternative explanation for why we hadn’t found the neutron star.
(C) Is irrelevant to the argument. Whether it was the first to be observed in progress does not strengthen the conclusion that the current theory is wrong.
(D) Is somewhat tempting. But only because it’s relevant. The problem is that this answer choice undermines the argument by suggesting that maybe current theory gets some things right.
(E) Is not very helpful but has all the right buzzwords. Multiple causes of neutron stars only makes the matter more confusing. To claim that current theory is incorrect because it predicts a neutron star in a place that we haven’t found one would not benefit to there being multiple causes of neutron starts.

I am very confused about why (e) is correct. If there are other causes, doesn't that help show that current theory is wrong?

[farhadshekib]

E) is wrong.

The conclusion we are trying to strengthen is: Supernovas of a certain size DO NOT always produce neutron stars.

In support of this conclusion, the author cites the following evidence:

- sensitive (best) instruments available have searched for neutron stars after the supernova event of 1987.
- No neutron star was found.

(B), the correct answer, strengthens this assertion by suggesting that the instruments used to search for such stars are pretty effective; in fact, they found neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.

In other words: if there was a neutron star after the 1987 supernova, B suggests that it is pretty likely that it would of been detected by these instruments.

(E), however, deals with a completely irrelevant issue - other causes on neutron stars.

The author doesn't care what else causes neutron stars; rather, she is only concerned with trying to prove that supernova events do not always = neutron stars.

[jpchris3]

Hi,

I still don't completely understand why E is wrong- if neutron stars are known to have come into existence by another cause, doesn't this also strengthen the argument?

[timmydoeslsat]

Our conclusion is that the current theory is wrong in it regarding that the supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.

The evidence is that even with the best equipment available, we cannot find these neutron stars that are supposedly there.

To strengthen this argument, we want to help shield it from criticism.

One criticism that is glaring: Maybe the equipment simply cannot find the stars because it is so far away. Maybe the neutron stars really are there, we just do not have the sophisticated equipment to see it yet.

Answer choice B gives us that.

In regards to answer choice E, we need to remember that we have not found this neutron star that is supposedly out there from the 1987 supernova. The fact that neutron stars can come about from other ways is not a factor for us. We cannot find this neutron star in question that is supposed to exist.

This argument really has a jump:

Cannot find the neutron star with our equipment ----> Therefore, it does not exist.

[austindyoung]

Hi,

I still don't completely understand why E is wrong- if neutron stars are known to have come into existence by another cause, doesn't this also strengthen the argument?

Hey, the problem with (E) doesn't weaken the theory- which is how we strengthen this argument here. Theory says: certain supernova---> neutron star.

We want to show, per the evidence given in the argument the cause without the effect. (E) shows us the effect without the cause, but this isn't the reason why the author is discrediting the theory. So, if true, it doesn't help the argument out, though it is tricky because it is a way to undermine a causal relationship.

(B) strengthens the cause and NOT effect construct occurring here. If these instruments are so sensitive, they should have found Ye effect given that the cause was present, and they did not.

HTH

Ps I'm on my phone so pardon any sp mistakes

[ShuqiM728]

I am struggling with this question on answer choice C.

Here is my thought process:
The argument concluded that the current theory was wrong because that there was no evidence of neutron stars remained after 1987 supernova event.

The stimulus asked us to strengthen the argument, so I tried to find the gap between premises and conclusion.

I prephrased the answer to be something that discussing supernova event of 1987 has actually happened, so that the alternative cause (e.g. because event in 1987 was not a supernova event) of why there were no neutron stars can be eliminated.

Then I turned to answer choices, and I found C which stated that the event in 1987 truly happened.

Thus I think it strengthens the argument. I kept thinking about this for one hour but still was not able to figure out where I got wrong.

Any thoughts or explanations would be appreciated. Thank you.

[andrewgong01]

I am struggling with this question on answer choice C.

Here is my thought process:
The argument concluded that the current theory was wrong because that there was no evidence of neutron stars remained after 1987 supernova event.

The stimulus asked us to strengthen the argument, so I tried to find the gap between premises and conclusion.

I prephrased the answer to be something that discussing supernova event of 1987 has actually happened, so that the alternative cause (e.g. because event in 1987 was not a supernova event) of why there were no neutron stars can be eliminated.

Then I turned to answer choices, and I found C which stated that the event in 1987 truly happened.

Thus I think it strengthens the argument. I kept thinking about this for one hour but still was not able to figure out where I got wrong.

Any thoughts or explanations would be appreciated. Thank you.

IF anything, we want to strengthen the idea that the theory is wrong and Chocie "C" makes it more like the theory is correct. Regardless, I would say "C" is more out of scope because what we are more so interested in is not wether or not the supernova occured but if supernova emits the neutron star. In other words, this question's core was more so focused on the consequences of a supernova and not the supernova itself

A potential gap in the argument is similar to the unproven vs untrue flaw where just because the instrunment did not see it (the neutron star that gets emitted) does not mean that it does not exist; the credited answer is giving us more reason that maybe it truly does not exist because the instrument was powerful enough to detect neutron starts even further away.

[RecentR237]

So this is what I'm grappling with regarding this question:

Although I know that the best answer is B, the answer is worded unclearly/incorrectly:
(1) It doesn't specify whether the detected neutron stars are of other supernovas or the subject 1987 supernova. (I ASSUMED it's the former and that is why I consider this answer to be the best. Although TECHNICALLY it is FAIR to assume the latter BECAUSE the answer did not specify either way)

(2) The following part of the answer, in bold, is unclear: Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.
Is this part of the answer trying to imply that other neutron stars (which were not formed by the 1987 supernova, but rather were formed by other supernovas) were found in locations much farther away from where a 1987-supernova neutron star would be located if it existed?

(3) does it make a difference whether the searches for other neutron stars are concurrent or nonconcurrent with the search for the 1987 neutron star?

Thank you in advance for your help