Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

What do both the viewpoint of Scientist 1 and the viewpoint of Scientist 2 have in common?

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

If research concluded that the Moon's composition was the same as the Earth's composition, which viewpoint would this support? 

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

What piece of information would help support Scientist 1's point of view?

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

What evidence listed below could be used to support the viewpoints of both scientists?

The cause of the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago is currently debated. Some attribute the extinction to volcanic activity while others attribute it to asteroid or comet impact. Two scientists offer conflicting viewpoints on the most probable cause of the mass extinction.

Scientist A

The extinction of dinosaurs was most likely caused by the impact of an asteroid or large comet. Unusually high levels of the rare metal iridium (found in extraterrestrial material) have been discovered in a layer of clay deposited at just the time of the extinction. In addition, this layer of clay contained quartz grains with a crystal structure that has been distorted by exceedingly high pressures (almost certainly caused by an impact). This colossal impact brought about a period of severe cooling that affected dinosaur eggs rather than adult dinosaurs. Small reptiles could survive by protecting their minute eggs in a variety of ways. However, there was no way for dinosaurs to protect their large eggs against a quickly-changing climate.

Scientist B

The extinction of dinosaurs was most likely caused by a volcanic outburst. In general, volcanic eruptions can have potent effects on climate. In 1815 the volcano Tambora in Indonesia erupted, spreading a pall of dust around the globe that resulted in killing frosts around Europe. The much larger eruption that formed the Deccan basalts about 65 million years ago would have caused a deeper and more prolonged cooling that directly affected adult dinosaurs. The rare metal iridium has been found both in active volcanoes and in a layer of clay deposited around the time of the dinosaur extinction. Therefore the dinosaurs were most likely affected by a massive volcanic eruption.

Suppose it were recently discovered that the quartz grains mentioned in the passage actually belonged to a layer of clay deposited about 50 million years ago. This finding would most likely weaken the viewpoint(s) of __________.

The cause of the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago is currently debated. Some attribute the extinction to volcanic activity while others attribute it to asteroid or comet impact. Two scientists offer conflicting viewpoints on the most probable cause of the mass extinction.

Scientist A

The extinction of dinosaurs was most likely caused by the impact of an asteroid or large comet. Unusually high levels of the rare metal iridium (found in extraterrestrial material) have been discovered in a layer of clay deposited at just the time of the extinction. In addition, this layer of clay contained quartz grains with a crystal structure that has been distorted by exceedingly high pressures (almost certainly caused by an impact). This colossal impact brought about a period of severe cooling that affected dinosaur eggs rather than adult dinosaurs. Small reptiles could survive by protecting their minute eggs in a variety of ways. However, there was no way for dinosaurs to protect their large eggs against a quickly-changing climate.

Scientist B

The extinction of dinosaurs was most likely caused by a volcanic outburst. In general, volcanic eruptions can have potent effects on climate. In 1815 the volcano Tambora in Indonesia erupted, spreading a pall of dust around the globe that resulted in killing frosts around Europe. The much larger eruption that formed the Deccan basalts about 65 million years ago would have caused a deeper and more prolonged cooling that directly affected adult dinosaurs. The rare metal iridium has been found both in active volcanoes and in a layer of clay deposited around the time of the dinosaur extinction. Therefore the dinosaurs were most likely affected by a massive volcanic eruption.

Under high pressure, densely packed clay can be transformed into loosely packed clay. Suppose that the density of clay found in the layer corresponding to 65 million years ago were abnormally low. This finding would support the viewpoint of __________.

Scientist 1: This scientist asserts that drilling for oil should be performed in the ocean. Scientist 1 claims that in the ocean, the oil is at a shorter depth below the Earth’s surface than on dry land. The shorter drilling depth is more ideal for access by drills.

Scientist 2: Scientist 2 believes that drilling for oil should be performed on dry land and not underwater. This is due to the fact that water is at a higher pressure than is observed on the surface of Earth. Scientist 2 asserts that drilling at the lower pressure will be less likely to damage the equipment resulting in an unsuccessful event.

Experiment: The scientists conduct various experiments. The data that the scientists collect indicates the depth at which it is necessary to drill on land and in the ocean in order to reach. The other data that the scientist collect is on the pressure that the equipment will need to experience while drilling for oil at each location.

If the water pressure is greater than the pressure that the drilling equipment can handle, which scientist's viewpoint is strengthened? 

Scientist 1: This scientist asserts that drilling for oil should be performed in the ocean. Scientist 1 claims that in the ocean, the oil is at a shorter depth below the Earth’s surface than on dry land. The shorter drilling depth is more ideal for access by drills.

Scientist 2: Scientist 2 believes that drilling for oil should be performed on dry land and not underwater. This is due to the fact that water is at a higher pressure than is observed on the surface of Earth. Scientist 2 asserts that drilling at the lower pressure will be less likely to damage the equipment resulting in an unsuccessful event.

Experiment: The scientists conduct various experiments. The data that the scientists collect indicates the depth at which it is necessary to drill on land and in the ocean in order to reach. The other data that the scientist collect is on the pressure that the equipment will need to experience while drilling for oil at each location.

If the equipment can handle the pressure underwater and it is discovered that the depth of oil is the same underwater and on land, which scientist's viewpoint is strengthened? 

Scientist 1: Scientist 1 claims that the best spot to find gold is near volcanic areas. This scientist claims that the high temperatures and high pressure helps to form the gold. Therefore the best area to find large quantities of gold is near volcanoes.

Scientist 2: Scientist 2 asserts that the best area to find gold is in rivers. In the rivers the gold can be free flowing and easier to see. In addition, the gold found in the rivers does not necessarily require equipment for digging. It is is found in the river due to the water carrying, rather than eroding it. 

Which location would both scientists agree to search for gold at? 

Scientist 1: Scientist 1 claims that the best spot to find gold is near volcanic areas. This scientist claims that the high temperatures and high pressure helps to form the gold. Therefore the best area to find large quantities of gold is near volcanoes.

Scientist 2: Scientist 2 asserts that the best area to find gold is in rivers. In the rivers the gold can be free flowing and easier to see. In addition, the gold found in the rivers does not necessarily require equipment for digging. It is is found in the river due to the water carrying, rather than eroding it. 

Which scientist's viewpoint would be weakened if it was discovered that fool's gold is abundant in rivers?