Skip to main contentSkip to solution

NOT everything looks lovelier the longer and closer its inspection. But Saturn does. It is gorgeous through Earthly telescopes. However, the 1313 years of close observation provided by Cassini, an American spacecraft, showed the planet, its moons and its remarkable rings off better and better, revealing finer structures, striking novelties and greater drama.

By and large the big things in the solar system planets and moons are thought of as having been around since the beginning. The suggestion that rings and moons are new is, though, made even more interesting by the fact that one of those moons, Enceladus, is widely considered the most promising site in the solar system on which to look for alien life. If Enceladus is both young and bears life, that life must have come into being quickly. This is also believed to have been the case on Earth. Were it true on Enceladus, that would encourage the idea that life evolves easily when conditions are right.

One reason for thinking Saturn's rings are young is that they are bright. The solar system is suffused with comet dust, and comet dust is dark. Leaving Saturn's ring system (which Cassini has shown to be more than 90%90 \% water ice) out in such a mist is like leaving laundry hanging on a line downwind from a smokestack: it will get dirty. The lighter the rings are, the faster this will happen, for the less mass they contain, the less celestial pollution they can absorb before they start to discolour. Jeff Cuzzi, a scientist at America's space agency, NASA, who helped run Cassini, told the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston that combining the mass estimates with Cassini's measurements of the density of comet dust near Saturn suggests the rings are no older than the first dinosaurs, nor younger than the last of them that is, they are somewhere between 200Ā m200 \mathrm{~m} and 70Ā m70 \mathrm{~m} years old.

That timing fits well with a theory put forward in 2016, by Matija Cuk of the SETI Institute, in California and his colleagues. They suggest that at around the same time as the rings came into being an old set of moons orbiting Saturn destroyed themselves, and from their remains emerged not only the rings but also the planet's current suite of inner moons Rhea, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus and Mimas.

Dr Cuk and his colleagues used computer simulations of Saturn's moons' orbits as a sort of time machine. Looking at the rate at which tidal friction is causing these orbits to lengthen they extrapolated backwards to find out what those orbits would have looked like in the past. They discovered that about 100Ā m100 \mathrm{~m} years ago the orbits of two of them, Tethys and Dione, would have interacted in a way that left the planes in which they orbit markedly tilted. But their orbits are untilted. The obvious, if unsettling, conclusion was that this interaction never happened-and thus that at the time when it should have happened, Dione and Tethys were simply not there. They must have come into being later.

Data provided by Cassini challenged the assumption that:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 3

To solve this question, we need to find what assumption Cassini's data went against. Look for statements about what people used to think vs what Cassini discovered.

The key is in paragraph 2 - it tells us the old assumption, then explains how Cassini challenged it.

From passage: "By and large the big things in the solar system planets and moons are thought of as having been around since the beginning. The suggestion that rings and moons are new is, though, made even more interesting..."

Thought Process:

Old assumption -> big things in solar system existed since beginning

Cassini's discovery -> rings and moons are actually young (200-70 million years old)

Therefore -> Cassini challenged the "since beginning" assumption


Option Analysis:

🟠 Option 1 -> scope-error -> focuses on life/Earth timing, but that's not the main assumption Cassini challenged. The passage mentions dinosaur timing just as a comparison, not as the core assumption.

šŸ”“ Option 2 -> contradiction -> Cassini actually supports this idea! The passage explains how old moons destroyed themselves to form new rings and moons. This isn't what was challenged.

🟢 Option 3 -> correct -> perfectly matches the assumption stated in paragraph 2. Cassini showed that rings and moons are young, directly challenging the idea that all big solar system objects existed "since the beginning."

🟠 Option 4 -> opposite -> Cassini confirmed this fact (rings are 90%+ water ice), didn't challenge it. This was a discovery, not a challenge to an assumption.

The confusion might be between Options 1 and 3, but Option 1 focuses on a side detail about timing, while Option 3 addresses the core assumption the entire passage discusses.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question