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.

The main objective of the passage is to:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 4

The passage starts with Saturn's beauty but quickly shifts to a bigger scientific argument. Let us trace the logical flow:

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..."

This shows the author is challenging the traditional view -> arguing for something new and recent instead of ancient.

The author then provides multiple pieces of evidence:

  • Rings are too bright (haven't had time to get dirty) -> suggests they're young
  • Jeff Cuzzi's research -> rings are 70-200 million years old
  • Dr. Cuk's computer simulations -> current moons couldn't have existed 100M years ago

Every paragraph builds toward proving these features are recently created, not ancient.


Students often get confused between Option 1 (beauty focus) and Option 4 (recent creation evidence). Here's how to eliminate:

šŸ”“ Option 1 -> partial-truth -> Yes, paragraph 1 mentions beauty and structures, but this is just the opening hook. The remaining 3 paragraphs focus entirely on age evidence, not beauty.

šŸ”“ Option 2 -> scope-error -> The passage mentions orbital changes as evidence for the main argument, but demonstrating orbital patterns isn't the primary goal.

šŸ”“ Option 3 -> opposite-intent -> This states the traditional view that the author is actively arguing against throughout the passage.

🟢 Option 4 -> correct -> Captures the main thread: author presents multiple scientific evidence sources (brightness, dust accumulation rates, orbital simulations) all supporting that rings and moons are recent creations, not ancient fixtures.

The key insight: Don't get distracted by the opening paragraph's beauty descriptions - focus on what the majority of the passage argues for.

Keyboard Shortcuts

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