▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that there are several possible sources that cause glow that known as the ashen light of Venus. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. First, the professor contends that a chemical process cannot be genuine source to the glow. The light is so faint that we could watch them with extremely advanced telescope, but what was used to observe the glow was just simple telescope. So something else would have been the reason for the phenomenon. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that a chemical process transported by wind to the dark side of the planet in the atmosphere is the one source for the glow, Next, the professor insists that sunlight reflected off by cloud in Venus can also be problematic. The glow is very rare occurrence. If sunlight that constantly illuminate the planet were the one reason, the frequency that light is detected should be identified more than being seen now. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that the glow caused by light that go back to the space by cloud of Venus. Finally, the aurorae cannot be explained fully. In order to occur the phenomenon, plasma should be polled to the magnetic field. However, Venus dose not have the magnetic field. So It dose not make sense in the first hand that aurorae is a source for ashen light of Venus. This refutes the reading passage’s suggestion that the visible light that is a energy that occurred when collision happen results in the ashen light of Venus. |