Q6 - Gamma Ray bursts

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: "short" and "long" have outlived their usefulness.
Evidence: A recent sighting of a GRB didn't cleanly fit either "short" or "long". Its duration was long, but it was otherwise short.

Answer Anticipation:
missing link ideas (connective tissue between PREM and CONC)
"If the terms don't cleanly fit a recent sighting, then they have outlived their usefulness"

debate ideas (how would we argue that "short" and "long" still COULD have some use?)
- this sighting was just an unusual anomaly ... not worth worrying about
- It's okay for events to sometimes be a blend of the two labels
- Who cares if other properties were "short"? If these terms are supposed to describe duration, then isn't calling this recent GRB "long" useful and accurate?

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is closer to a weaken idea. It sounds like our first objection.

(B) This is closer to weaken. Sounds like our third objection

(C) This seems to attack our third objection. Since the terms "short" and "long" have typically reflected duration, and by that standard the recent GRB was "long", this answer choice makes it sound like we REALLY should be calling this recent GRB "short". A duration-based label doesn't seem very useful if properties other than duration are more important. This is weird, but it strengthens.

(D) This sounds more like a weaken idea, like something you'd say if you were like, "We're STUCK with these labels dude. They're imperfect but better than alternatives."

(E) This doesn't really speak to the usefulness, or lack thereof, of the current labels. It's not really clear how nondescriptive labels are a better option. Would the recent GRB be "type I" or "type II"?

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a pretty tough correct answer for a #6. It's really just securing the idea that we would be misclassifying the unusual GRB if we grouped it with "long" bursts, rather than "short" bursts. Since the descriptive labels of "short" and "long" would lead us to MISCLASSIFY this unusual GRB as "long", we get closer to the author's conclusion that short/long aren't very useful labels to use.

#officialexplanation

[contropositive]

For some reason I did not like any of the answer choices. I still don't under why C is correct; hopefully someone can help...here is my thought process:


Sufficient Assumption Question Type

Core:
Premise: The unusual GRB was "long" but in every other respect had properties of "short" classification
Conclusion: the descriptive labels "short" and "long" are no longer useful

I couldn't really see the assumption but I just kept in my mind "if GRB has both characteristics then it makes it not useful anymore"

A) other GRBs being sighted is out of scope
B) this was my initial pick because I couldn't see anything else that works...now I'm guessing this is a premise booster because we already learned that traditionally GRBs were classified in terms of their duration
D) cosmic events seemed out of scope. Now that I know C is the right answer i'm assuming D is a weakener because it's blocking other properties that can classify GRB
E) out of scope

I don't see how other properties importance is an assumption in the argument. I guess if the author is telling us the current descriptive labels have outlived there usefulness, then he's assuming there are other properties in existence that can be used?
This answer choice seems like a comparative trap

[snoopy]

For some reason I did not like any of the answer choices. I still don't under why C is correct; hopefully someone can help...here is my thought process:

I don't see how other properties importance is an assumption in the argument. I guess if the author is telling us the current descriptive labels have outlived there usefulness, then he's assuming there are other properties in existence that can be used?
This answer choice seems like a comparative trap

Yes, I think your thought process for C is correct. If the tradition has been to describe GRBs as "short" or "long" (duration-based properties) but there is an unusual GRB that seem to have both properties, then perhaps using "short" and "long" as descriptive labels need to be reexamined (aka outlived their usefulness). This is under the assumption that there could be other ways to describe the unusual GRB.