The passages given below are followed by a set of questions. Choose the most…
2024
The passages given below are followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
Astrologers habitually prone to goof-ups now have an excuse for why their predictions have been going haywire, the emergence of newer and newer planets that have caused their calculations to go awry. For the international team of astronomers who recently discovered eight new planets, the arrivals are, however, a cause for excitement. Indeed, even as the rest of the world continues to be consumed by a morbid passion for shiny new war machines, deadly chemicals, and sinister war tactics, astronomers have been doggedly searching the heavens for more heavenly bodies in the belief that the search will take us closer to a more exalted goal—that of knowing the truth about us and the universe. “Reality is much bigger than it seems... the part we call the universe is the merest tip of the iceberg”. One scientist remarked. How true. In the beginning, skeptics wouldn't accept that the earth actually moves, let alone that it revolves around the sun because of an unshaken belief that the earth was the center of the universe. We've come a long way. Today, scientists have spotted nearly 80 extra-solar planets using sophisticated instruments. What's more, our universe may not be the only universe in the cosmos; there could be several parallel universes teeming with many galaxies, solar systems, and planets, although none of this may be perceptible to the naked eye. Perhaps sages who say that truth is not easily perceptible, mean just this—what is evidence before us is not the whole truth.
Scientists say that “everything in the tangible universe has its shadowy counterpart in other, parallel universes”. In fact, it is by observing the play of cosmic light and shadow through powerful devices that scientists have been able to ‘feel’ shapes or ‘see’ shadows that indicate the existence of other heavenly bodies without actually seeing them. The international team of scientists involved in the present discovery conducted their search through telescopes in Australia, Belgium, the UK, and the US. Two of the newly discovered eight planets are believed to have circular orbits very like the Earth's, while the others have well-defined elliptical orbits much like Pluto's. This is significant because a planet with a circular orbit would more likely be hospitable to life forms than would one with an elliptical orbit. In the latter, the planet experiences extreme temperatures depending on whether it is proximate to or distant from the energy-giving star it's circumambulating. As in the case of other recent discoveries—such as finding traces of microbes in a meteorite—this too strengthens the belief that we're not alone in the universe. So would we be exchanging intergalactic emails soon? Perhaps not as yet, given that our closest neighboring galaxy is millions of light years away. What is within our immediate grasp, though, is exploring the viability of establishing human settlements in space — an endeavor that has assumed urgency what with biological terrorism and the like threatening humankind on earth. As Stephen Hawking recently said, “I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet.”
According to the passage it can be inferred that:
- A.
A planet with a circular orbit is more likely to be hospitable to life forms than would one with an elliptical orbit because the latter experiences extreme temperatures.
- B.
A planet with a circular orbit is more likely to be hospitable to a life form than would one with an elliptical orbit since the latter is proximate to the energy-giving star it is circumambulating.
- C.
A planet with a circular orbit is more likely to be hospitable to life than would one with an elliptical orbit because the latter experiences very low temperatures.
- D.
Both the statement that the elliptical orbit causes extreme temperatures and the statement that it causes very low temperatures are true.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
For an 'it can be inferred that' question, a choice is correct only if the passage's own wording directly supports it — not because it merely sounds plausible. When a passage states a condition using an either/or structure (e.g., 'depending on whether X or Y'), an inference that flattens this into a single fixed condition is not supported, even if it names one of the two named states; but an inference that restates the overall effect, or that names one of the two specific named states as an instance of that effect, is textually supported. A combined choice ('both P and Q') is correct only when each sub-claim, checked independently, survives this test.
The passage states that elliptical-orbit planets experience 'extreme temperatures depending on whether it is proximate to or distant from the energy-giving star.'
Check the 'extreme temperatures' claim: it is the exact wording used in the passage, so it is a direct, unqualified match — fully supported on its own.
Check the 'very low temperatures' claim: the passage's own either/or clause names 'distant from the star' as one of the two conditions producing the extreme swing; being distant is precisely what produces very low temperatures, so this claim is also directly anchored in the same sentence, as one instance of the stated 'extreme' effect.
Check the 'proximate to the star' claim: the passage frames proximity as only one of two alternatives ('whether ... proximate to or distant from'), never asserting that the elliptical-orbit planet actually is close to the star. Treating proximity as the fixed, given condition contradicts the passage's own conditional wording, so this claim is not supported.
Since both the 'extreme temperatures' restatement and the 'very low temperatures' instance are independently anchored in the text, and the 'proximate' claim is not, the fully supported inference is the combined statement pairing the first two — not any single one of them alone, and not the option asserting fixed proximity.
An independent check: if the elliptical orbit's temperature genuinely depended only on being close to the star, the passage would not need the 'or distant from' clause at all — the very presence of that clause is what licenses treating 'very low' as a valid additional inference alongside 'extreme', and rules out 'proximate' as a stand-alone claim.