One of the main problem related to the verbal section of the GRE, and consequently a poor score, is that the student does not follow one of the key rules: not read the passage very carefully

The answer choice says



The passage says



As you can see, B syas that Galileo explained for sure the origin of the star above Padua, but the passage clearly states that they only made conjecture. Nothing is explained precisely

Hope now is clear

Months mean also 13,14...........which is more than one year.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Who exactly posited that perhaps it was merely “vapour near the earth? is it Galileo or the public who attended or philosophers?
Putting it between parentheses makes this point unclear in the passage

Galileo, who lectured at the university, gave several lectures widely attended by the public. The lectures not only sought to explain the origin of the “star” (some posited that perhaps it was merely “vapour near the earth”)

The lectures advocated the origin of the star but SOME said something slightly different............

There is nothing unclear here or bad grammar or a falter sentence

galileo said X

During these lectures he sustained something

OTHERS said a different thing

so why Q3-E: "Those who thought the supernova was “vapour” were proved wrong" is a wrong answer?

OE



I add my two cents: following the explosion , galileo had been hired by the University in Padova about the explosion (the reason why) + other theories

So C is the answer

Galileo, who lectured at the university, gave several lectures widely attended by the public.

what , overall, was undermined in the lectures was the view of Earth centric theory

Re Question 2: Proof that "Supernovae can take over a year to fade from view" comes from this line:

The Padua supernova was visible for more than a year, and that proves that supernovae CAN take over a year to fade from view. The line "supernovae take weeks or months to fade from view" does not provide the proof.

Can you please share an explanation for Q1?

QUESTION #1 EXPLANATION


Articulate the main idea before reading the choices. Is the passage really about supernovae, or is it about Galileo, the philosophers, and the ideas being discussed? The fact that the “twist” occurs in the second paragraph (the passage is not talking just about science—now it’s talking about history and philosophy) supports the position that the second paragraph is more central to the main idea and that the first paragraph is background information. Choice (A) is wrong because it does not mention the main content of the second paragraph, the ideas and assumptions that became controversial. It is also too broad—giving a history of supernovae would take a lot more than two paragraphs. Choice (B) is correct—the passage does describe a “shift in thought” (from the unchangeable “heavens” to a more scientific view), and this shift was prompted by a “natural event” (the supernova). Choice (C) is attractive but does not describe the main idea. While Galileo and the philosophers certainly had different views about the bright light they saw in the sky, it’s not clear that philosophers had “views about supernovae” in general. Choice (D) can be stricken due to “corroborate” (to prove true or support with evidence). The passage is describing, not making an argument. Finally, choice (E) is too broad. One could spend an entire career discussing how science and philosophy interrelate. This passage covers a much more narrow topic.

QUESTION #2 EXPLANATION

The first sentence of the second paragraph proves the first statement: “In 1604 in Padua, Italy, a supernova became visible, appearing as a star so bright that it was visible in daylight for more than a year.” Since this supernova was visible for more than a year, it is possible for supernovae to “take more than a year to fade from view.” (Note that if the first statement said “Supernovae always take more than a year to fade from view,” it would be wrong.) The second statement cannot be proven. Just because a supernova in 1604 caused a stir does not mean no one else had ever seen one before. The third statement also cannot be proven. Galileo disagreed with the philosophers, but those particular philosophers may never have changed their minds.

QUESTION #3 EXPLANATION


As a result of the supernova in 1604, Galileo gave popular lectures in which he “sought to explain the origin of the ‘star’” and which “undermined the views” of some philosophers. Choice (A) mixed up some wording from the first paragraph to set a trap; the Earth was not made after the supernova of 1604. Choice (B) is too extreme—Galileo “sought to explain” the origin of the supernova, but it is unclear whether he succeeded. Choice (C) is true—the lectures were “widely attended by the public.” (A very picky person might point out that just because people go to a lecture doesn’t mean they are interested, but all of the other answers are definitely wrong, so that confirms that this is a reasonable—that is, very tiny—inferential leap.) Choice (D) is attractive, but is a trap answer. Galileo, in his lectures, “undermined” (weakened) the views of the philosophers. But the passage doesn’t say what the philosophers’ responses were or whether the philosophers were opposed to the lectures themselves (a person could be opposed to the ideas in a lecture but still think the lecturer should be allowed to lecture). Choice (E) is also attractive because the modern reader knows this to be true in real life. However, the question does not ask, “What really happened?” It asks: “The author mentions which of the following as a result of the supernova of 1604?” The author does not mention that the philosophers were “proved wrong.” Their views were “undermined,” which is much less extreme.

Let me know if you need further assistance