Question

17,703 Learners found this answer helpful

rejoining the club
one plus one equals two, a triangle has three sides, and there are nine planets. for those who learned about our little corner of the cosmos before 2006, all of those facts were set in stone. that all changed when a group of astronomy experts created a set of criteria that altered the solar system. in the blink of an eye, pluto found itself in exile, a lowly \dwarf planet\ abruptly kicked out of an exclusive group. luckily, numerous scientists have publicly come out in favor of remedying this unfortunate blunder.
the definition of a planet developed in 2006 required a rotating celestial body to have a spherical shape, to orbit only the sun, and to
reread the underlined sentences on page 3. how would the diagram on page 5 be affected if the definition of a planet proposed on page 3 were implemented?
a new classification would be created for smaller celestial bodies like makemake.
pluto would once again be classified as the smallest planet in the solar system.
some of the planets that are currently classified as dwarfs would be reclassified.
the sizes of the dwarf planets would be more important in classifying them.

Explanation:

The passage is about the reclassification of planets (and dwarf planets) due to a proposed new definition. The option "Some of the planets that are currently classified as dwarfs would be reclassified" aligns with the idea of changing classifications (like Pluto's demotion and potential reversal). The first option's "new classification for smaller bodies" isn't supported (the 2006 definition already has dwarf planets). The second option is incorrect as the proposed change would likely reclassify dwarf planets, not re - classify Pluto as a planet again. The fourth option about size being more important isn't indicated; the focus is on the definition's implementation affecting classification, not size priority.

Answer:

Some of the planets that are currently classified as dwarfs would be reclassified.