I agree with you. The passage said that the studies of Moon craters challenged the view in first sentence and rejuvenated Schmidt's theory. So I think B is correct too.

The passage provides evidence that Schmidt would be likely to disagree with the theory presented in the first sentence over

The blue word indicates that the answer choices correct are B and C and A is wrong. However, this was true if the word would be AGREE. Considering that is the contrary, B and C are wrong and only A is correct.

Read the stem very carefully.

Regards

I think the other two people understood the question. I think the contention arises because the first theory does not indicate any belief about the craters on the moon (And is challenges by the idea of rocks hitting the moon 4.5B years ago). In fact all the first theory says is that planets are caused by collapsing dust. Clouds of dust directly turn into planets. Only the second theory mention rocks from planet formation. Why would the first theory believe that planet-forming rocks created 4.5 billion years collided with the moon? Its more likely the first theory would believe moon craters are caused by volcanoes or whatever, rather than objects(nonexistant) during planet formation.

It seems like the two theories differ in their beliefs about the cause of moon's craters?

Any alternative explanations would be appreciated!

Regards,

B is not correct. The passage DOES NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE to conclude that Schmidt would disagree with the theory presented in the first sentence. If there is no evidence in the passage, then we can not infer anything about moon's impact craters that would have made Schmidt disagree with the theory.

Hope that helps.

Yeah that actually makes some sense. I was inferring too much.

I think my mistake was inferring that Schmidt would agree with (rocks causing craters) because that was what rejuvinated his theory. Actually his theory doesn't say anything about the moon.
We can't make this link right?


You know it's so frustrating because the GRE expects you to sometimes make inferences, but sometimes don't. :D

Yes, correct. The first theory doesn’t say anything about moon craters, so we can’t infer that Schmidt would disagree with it.

My god. The GRE is playing games with me.

Tough one.

Question 1


According to Schmidt's theory cosmic dust gradually lumped into ever-larger conglomerates.

A- The phrase 'gradually lumped' is at odds with the first theory where "planets were created by the rapid gravitational collapse of a dust cloud, a deflation giving rise to a dense orb". The at odds thing is gradually lumped vs rapid collapse. A is correct.
B- Moon's findings are UNRELATED to Schmidt's finding. The findings only helped REJUVENATE INTEREST in Schmidt's theory.
C- Importance of cosmic dust is given in both.

Question 2


The observation in question is "studies of Moon craters revealed that these craters were caused by the impact of objects that were in great abundance about 4.5 billion years ago but whose number appeared to have quickly decreased shortly thereafter".

A- Unrelated to our observation.
B- Trap since we don't know if collisions were by objects such as small planets. All we know is that craters were caused by some objects.
C- Not the observation we are looking for, this is Schmidt's theory.
D- Yes this is correct as is stated by "whose number appeared to have quickly decreased shortly thereafter".
E- Again, not our observation. This is something that the author concludes.

Thanks.

Concerning first question
1st theory = rapid (length) + condensation(big to small)(method of formation)
2nd thory(otta) = gradual + accretion (small to big)
so the two theories iffer in their understanding regarding the length and the method of formation
so otto would diagree with someone who says it was rapid(len) or if someone says it was due to condensation or both simultaneously
option A has raised the issue of length - otto would disagree
option B- this is just the support for otta that many things were there and collision happened..doesn't directly contribute to the length and method argument