Critical Reading Question

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Passage 2
Although posed in the most casual of circumstances,
45 the Fermi Paradox has reverberated through the decades
and has at times threatened to destroy the credibility
of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program.
One possible answer to Fermi’s question (“If there are
50 extraterrestrials, where are they?”) is that extraterrestrials
have in fact often visited Earth, and continue to do so.
This is the answer of those who believe in the existence
of unidentified flying objects, or UFO’s. But few scientists,
even those engaged in SETI, take the UFO claims
55 seriously. “You won’t find anyone around here who
believes in UFO’s,” says Frank Drake, a well-known
SETI scientist. If one discounts the UFO claims, yet still
believes that there are many technological civilizations in
the galaxy, why have they not visited us? Drake’s answer
60 is straightforward: “High-speed interstellar travel is so
demanding of resources and so hazardous that intelligent
civilizations don’t attempt it.” And why should they
attempt it, when radio communication can supply all
the information they might want?
65 At first glance, Drake’s argument seems very persuasive.
The distances between stars are truly immense.
To get from Earth to the nearest star and back, traveling
at 99 percent of the speed of light, would take 8 years.
And SETI researchers have shown that, to accelerate
70 a spacecraft to such a speed, to bring it to a stop, and
to repeat the process in the reverse direction, would
take almost unimaginable amounts of energy.
Astronomer Ben Zuckerman challenges Drake’s
notion that technological beings would be satisfied with
75 radio communication. “Drake’s implicit assumption is
that the only thing we’re going to care about is intelligent
life. But what if we have an interest in simpler
life-forms? If you turn the picture around and you have
some advanced extraterrestrials looking at the Earth, until
80 the last hundred years there was no evidence of intelligent
life but for billions of years before that they could have
deduced that this was a very unusual world and that there
were probably living creatures on it. They would have had
billions of years to come investigate.” Zuckerman contends
85 that the reason extraterrestrials haven’t visited us is that so
few exist.</p>

<hr>

<p>In lines 44-48, the author of Passage 2 indicates that
the Fermi Paradox has been
(A) thoroughly misunderstood
(B) surprisingly influential
(C) overwhelmingly perplexing
(D) intermittently popular
(E) frequently misquoted</p>

<hr>

<p>I chose (C), but the right answer is (B). I don't really get this question. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks in advance!</p>

2

<p>The Fermi paradox is influential in that it has, at times, “threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engages in the SETI program.”</p>

<p>Perplexing would suggest that the Fermi Paradox is confusing or confounding, which is not conveyed by the passage</p>

3

<p>I understand why its B</p>

<p>Although posed in the most casual of circumstances,
the Fermi Paradox has -<em>reverberated</em>- through the decades
and has at times -<em>threatened to destroy</em>- the credibility
of -<em>those</em>- scientists -<em>seriously engaged</em>- in the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program</p>

<p>I suspect those highlighted by -<em>text</em>- are high indicators of influence… well that is at least what I would base the answer off of.</p>

4

<p>The key in this question I believe is the phrase “although posed in the most casual of circumstances.” This might be a stretch here, but the paradox isn’t that hard to understand (hence “casual”), but yet it still “has at times threatened to destroy the credibility of those scientists seriously engaged in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program.”</p>

<p>The paradox is surprising that it actually affected the scientists in SETI despite being simple. I don’t know if that’s the correct reasoning, but I used it to get the correct answer.</p>

<p>Also, this might sound like a **** explanation, but the other choices make really no sense at all when you consider them. You could basically just cross out the ones you know are wrong and end up with the answer.</p>