Question

Supporters of the Alvarezes’ theory believe finding the impact crater is not necessary because: \begin{equation}\begin{array}{l}{\text { I. the crater probably is on the ocean floor. }} \\ {\text { Il. iridium occurs at the Earth's core. }} \\\ {\text { III. processes like erosion and volcanic eruptions }} \\ {\text { obscured the crater. }}\end{array}\end{equation} \begin{equation}\begin{array}{l}{\mathrm{A. I only }} \\ {\mathrm{B. I and II only}} \\ {\mathrm{C. I and III only}} \\ {\mathrm{D. II and III only}}\end{array}\end{equation}

Short answer

C. I and III only

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Given Statements

Examine the three statements provided: I. The crater is likely on the ocean floor. II. Iridium occurs at the Earth's core. III. Erosion and volcanic eruptions have obscured the crater.

Evaluate the Need for Finding the Crater

Consider why supporters believe finding the crater is not necessary. Each statement offers a reason that could make finding the crater difficult or unnecessary for supporting the Alvarezes’ theory.

Analyze Each Statement Separately

Analyze how each statement supports the idea that the crater is not essential.- Statement I: If the crater is on the ocean floor, it may be hard to locate and not necessary for proving the theory.- Statement II: This statement does not directly explain why the crater isn't necessary; it’s more about iridium's presence.- Statement III: If natural processes have obscured the crater, it might be impossible to find, making finding it unnecessary.

Identify the Correct Answer

Combine the supportive statements (excluding II) to see which option fits. Options mentioning II can be excluded since II does not contribute to the primary reason. This leaves us with the valid points I and III.

Match with the Answer Choices

Compare your findings with the provided answer choices: A. I only B. I and II only C. I and III only D. II and III only To conclude, the answer combining valid reasons (I and III) is option C.

Key concepts

problem-solving strategies

When solving SAT Reasoning questions, it's crucial to approach them with a set strategy. Start by carefully reading the problem, ensuring you understand each part of the question. For this specific question, we need to evaluate why supporters of the Alvarezes’ theory believe finding the impact crater is unnecessary. Begin by breaking down the given statements. Assess each statement independently, considering how it might support the idea that finding the crater isn't essential. This systematic approach ensures that no part of the question is overlooked. Next, eliminate any statements that don't directly support the theory. It helps to compare each option with the original goal. Practice these steps with various questions to build a strong problem-solving strategy.

answer choice analysis

Answer choice analysis involves scrutinizing each given option to determine which one best fits the question. Here, we are given four options related to why the impact crater may not be necessary according to Alvarezes' theory supporters. To accurately analyze the choices:

• First, recall the statements evaluated in the problem. These were I: the crater is on the ocean floor, II: iridium occurs at the Earth's core, and III: erosion and volcanic eruptions have obscured the crater.
• Next, determine which of these statements directly address the difficulty or unimportance of finding the crater.
• Create a process of elimination. Since Statement II doesn’t address the necessity of finding the crater directly, any option containing II can be excluded. That leaves the options with I and III, which can be cross-referenced with the other given choices.
Depending on your findings, the optimal strategy would be to select the combination that aligns most directly with the supporting evidence, leading to the appropriate selection.

supporting evidence evaluation

Evaluating supporting evidence is crucial for justifying your answer. Let's examine how:

• Statement I: Claims the crater is likely on the ocean floor--this means finding it could be very challenging or nearly impossible without advanced technology. Hence, the theory doesn't necessarily require physical evidence if it is impractical to obtain.
• Statement III: Argues that natural processes like erosion and volcanic eruptions have hidden the crater. This would suggest that physical detection is highly improbable due to environmental alterations over time.
By combining logical reasoning from these statements, we conclude that finding the crater isn’t crucial to support the Alvarezes' theory. This brings us to the correct answer (I and III), as supported by the analysis. Make sure to always validate the logical connections between statements and the theories they support. Thus, any given evidence should be grounded in strong reasoning to ensure a well-supported answer choice.