4 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 13317
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm
ekamy wrote:Sorry about that. But why the answer would be E?
The physics professors whole argument revolves around the belief that all types of ball lightning have the same cause, in this case superheated plasma in which electrical resistance fails, and that that cause would emit intense light.
Since the instances of ball lightning that the professor observed didnt have these characteristics, he believes that superheated plasma with failed electrical resistance is never a factor in causing ball lightning. Hence his assumption is what E says.
Using the assumption negation technique this answer is confirmed. "What would weaken the professors conclusion that superheated plasma..." If you negate E, it very much weakens the professors conclusion.
I hope this cleared things up for you.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests