Question

read the passage. there are several questions about this passage. from calibration: playing with scales 1 to gain a richer sense of cosmic proportions, we can paraphrase william blake, and see the earth as a fine grain of sand. the sun, then, would be an orange - sized object twenty feet away, while jupiter, the biggest planet of the solar system, would be a pebble eighty - four feet in the other direction—almost the length of a basketball court—and the outermost orbs of the solar system, neptune and pluto, would be larger and smaller grains, respectively, found at a distance of two and a quarter blocks from granule earth. beyond that, the gaps between scenic vistas become absurd, and it’s best to settle in for a nice, comfy coma. assuming our little orrery of a solar system is tucked into a quiet neighborhood in newark, new jersey, you won’t reach the next stars—the alpha centauri triple star system—until somewhere just west of omaha, or the star after that until the foothills of the rockies. and in between astronomical objects is lots and lots of space, silky, sullen, inky - dinky space, plenty of nothing, nulls within voids. just as the dominion of the very small, the interior of the atom, is composed almost entirely of empty space, so, too, is the kingdom of the heavens. nature, it seems, adores a vacuum. 2 “the universe is a pretty empty place, and that’s something most people don’t get,” said michael brown of caltech. “you go watch star wars, and you see the heroes flying through an asteroid belt, and they’re twisting and turning nonstop to avoid colliding with asteroids.” in reality, he said, when the galileo spacecraft flew through our solar system’s asteroid belt in the early 1990s, nasa spent millions of dollars in a manic effort to steer the ship close enough to one of the rubble rocks to take photos and maybe sample a bit of its dust. “and when they got lucky and the spacecraft actually passed by two asteroids, it was considered truly amazing,” said brown. “for most of galileo’s journey, there was nothing. nothing to see, nothing to take pretty pictures of. and we’re talking about the solar system, which is a fairly dense region of the universe.” choose two ways that the author makes her points about the universe convincing. 1. she uses scientific terminology such as “planet” and “spacecraft” in paragraphs 1 and 2 to establish her qualifications for writing about science. 2. she refers in paragraph 2 to a well - known movie in order to illustrate a confirmed truth about asteroids. 3. she includes quotations in paragraphs 2 and 4 from astronomy experts to add credibility to her statements. 4. she cites statistics in paragraph 3 about distances between astronomical objects to provide data in support of her argument. 5. she offers details in paragraph 4 about what happens when galaxies collide in order to help readers visualize events in deep space. question # 9

Explanation:

• Option 3: The passage includes quotes from Michael Brown (an astronomy expert) in paragraph 2 to support claims about the universe's emptiness and asteroid belts, adding credibility.
• Option 4: Paragraph 3 (implied or from context) likely has statistics on astronomical distances (e.g., distances between stars, planets) to back the argument about cosmic proportions/emptiness.

Other options:

• Option 1: Using "planet" and "spacecraft" is not to establish qualifications but to describe concepts.
• Option 2: Referring to "Star Wars" is to contrast movie inaccuracy with reality, not illustrate a confirmed truth about asteroids.
• Option 5: The passage doesn't focus on galaxy collisions in paragraph 4 for visualization.

Answer:

1. She includes quotations in paragraphs 2 and 4 from astronomy experts to add credibility to her statements.
2. She cites statistics in paragraph 3 about distances between astronomical objects to provide data in support of her argument.