(지문)
The recently announced discovery of the first known planet orbiting
a pulsar (the ultradense, pulsating remnant off the supernova explosion of a
star) turned out to be based on faulty data. Had this discovery been confirmed,
theorists would have had difficulty accounting for the existence of such a
planet. The supernova would certainly have destroyed and preexisting planets.
This particular pulsar is relatively young, allowing little time for a new
planet to have coalesced, and it rotates relatively slowly, implying that it
has not interacted with any nearby star since the supernova.
But newer evidence of a different pulsar with planets is more
promising. This is a rapidly spurring “millisecond pulsar” thought to be a much
older object that has pulled gaseous material from a stellar neighbor, causing its
rotational speed to increase. Leftover, unconsumed gas around such a pulsar
could, in theory, coalesce into planets. Or the pulsar’s radiation might have
vaporized a companion star, providing new material for planetary formation.
1. Which of the following best describe the organization of the
passage?
A. Two sets of research findings relating to similar phenomenon are
mentioned, and the theoretical implication of each is discussed.
B. A theoretical explanation of a phenomenon is presented and rejected,
and a more attractive alternative is offered.
C. Two independent and divergent interpretations of a set of observational
data are compared and one is favored over the other.
D. An example of careless scientific research is introduced and
contrasted with a more rigorous analysis of the same material.
E. The state of knowledge of an unexplainable phenomenon is outlined
and an approach to further investigation is recommended.
여기서, 저는 답을 B번이라고 생각했는데, 왜 A번일까요??