Practice Reading G

[mishum2000]

For 150 years scientists have tried to determine the solar constant, the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth. Yet, even in the most cloud-free regions of the planet, the solar constant cannot be measured precisely. Gas molecules and dust particles in the atmosphere absorb and scatter sunlight and prevent some wavelengths of the light from ever reaching the ground.

 

With the advent of satellites, however, scientists have finally been able to measure the Sun's output without being impeded by the Earth's atmosphere. Solar Max, a satellite from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), has been measuring the Sun's output since February 1980. Although a malfunction in the satellite's control system limited its observation for a few years, the satellite was repaired in orbit by astronauts from the space shuttle in 1984. Max's observations indicate that the solar constant is not really constant after all.

 

The satellite's instruments have detected frequent, small variations in the Sun's energy output, generally amounting to no more than 0.05 percent of the Sun's mean energy output and lasting from a few days to a few weeks. Scientists believe these fluctuations coincide with the appearance and disappearance of large groups of sunspots on the Sun's disk. Sunspots are relatively dark regions on the Sun's surface that have strong magnetic fields and a temperature about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the rest of the Sun's surface. Particularly large fluctuations in the solar constant have coincided with sightings of large sunspot groups. In 1980, for example, Solar Max's instruments registered a 0.3 percent drop in the solar energy reaching the Earth. At that time a sunspot group covered about 0.6 percent of the solar disk, an area 20 times larger than the Earth's surface.

 

Long-term variations in the solar constant are more difficult to determine. Although Solar Max's data have indicated a slow and steady decline in the Sun's output, some scientists have thought that the satellite's aging detectors might have become less sensitive over the years, thus falsely indicating a drop in the solar constant. This possibility was dismissed, however, by comparing Solar Max's observations with data from a similar instrument operating on NASA's Nimbus 7 weather satellite since 1978.

 

 

 

38. The phrase "This possibility" in line 27 refers to the likelihood that the

 

 

(A) solar constant has declined

 

(B) Nimbus 7 satellite is older than Solar Max

 

© solar constant cannot be measured

 

(D) instruments are providing inaccurate data

 

 

I have answered A, but the correct answer is D. Why ?

 

I'm waiting for your replies,

 

Thank you,

 

Michael.

 

 

[FUD84]

the possibility they mentioned here is that the aging detectors make a mistake in measure . therefore the answer is certainly D.

answer A doesn't make sense. because after this story we know that the decline of the sun's output is real. So if you say "that the solar constant has declined is dismissed", it's contrary to the fact.

[manasi4gre]

Michael,

 

Yes,the answer is D- instruments are providing inaccurate data

 

The choice A is also correct to some extent but D is more correct with respect to the ques. and answers the ques. well.

 

If you read the passage clearly, you'll see that the data is later compared with

that taken by Nimbus and this removed the possibility that the previous data is incorrect.

Also, this paragraph stresses on the data taken by Solar Max. You can also see that it starts with "Although Solar Max's data have indicated a slow and steady decline ".......

 

Hope it is clear. :)