▶ Your Answer :
The
reading passage and the lecture both deal with the origin of a faint glow. The
reading provides three pieces of evidence to prove its possibility, whereas the
lecture argues against it by providing three compelling rebuttals.
First,
the article points out that the ashen light could be the result of a chemical
process in Venus's atmosphere. When carbon diocide is heated by solar radiation
in the atmosphere, it splits into carbon monoxide and oxygen. When this
reaction occurs, the light is produced.
However, the lecturer challenges the point
by stating that it is impossible. This is because the light from the reaction
is faint. So it can only be observed using really great telescope. It can’t be
detected using simple telescope of astraners?. If they find something, it must be
something else.
Second,
in the reading, the author argues that the glow is sunlight reflected off
clouds. Venus is covered by a dense layer of clouds, so light could easily be
reflected.
On the other hand, the professor makes an
opposing point to this argument. The professor's point is that ashen light
occurs very rarely. So, if the light is reflected light, we can have more opportunity
to observe the light. Therefore, these are not the same phenomenon.
Finally,
the writer goes on to explain that the glow is aurorae. When plasma from the
sun enters a planet's atmosphere. The energy produced by plasma particle
collisions takes the form of visible light.
On the contrary, the speaker refutes the
writer's claim that plasma light can enter by a magnetic field. But, Venus
doesn’t have magnetic field, so it can’t generate the result what author’s
think. |