Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer. It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it). However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.
because your answer doesn't strengthen the argument that not all supernovas create neutron stars. our answer does- it proves that our methods are indeed capable of detecting such stars, even the ones that are farther away.
Wait, I'm so confused. So saying by saying that the first time that there was a supernova and it didn't create a neutron star DOESN'T strengthen the argument that supernovas don't always create neutron stars. I mean if it's the first time and it doesn't do it, then it must not always do it. I have to be approaching this wrong.
I dont understand your answer choice, so please explain. It was the first time they observed it? so what, how does it strengthen the argument?
Maybe I don't remember the question that well. Anyway I thought it worked like this: there was a supernova and the didn't find a neutron star. Therefore the theory that supernovas create neutron stars must be wrong. Then it asked which answer choice strengthened that rationality. The answer choice I selected was it was the first time that they had observed a supernova. Therefore, if it was the first time and the supernova didn't create the neutron star as they theorized, this obviously strengthened the argument that they were wrong (supporting the argument in the stimulus).
So
Theory
Cause: supernova Effect: Neutron Star
What happened: Cause: Supernova Effect: Neutron Star
Answer: It was the first time this happened (cause and effect). Thus proving the initial cause and effect relationship doesn't always exist and is therefore wrong.