>>22219395Ok so let's break this down.
The theory: A super nova of adequate size will always produce a neutron star
The text says that with topnotch technology we could not get a reading on a neutron star. Thus, because we could not get a reading, it is not there.
Now we reach a cross roads, because the whole point is held by a single fact, we believe that is not an error in our reading. So is our technology at fault or it just doesn't exist.
If we wish to strengthen the position were we say that the current theory is wrong (it just doesn't exist a star there) we must further reenforce that our technology is capable.
A implies it is just a coincidence, witch is just retarded, do you thing this stars appear out of just coincidence?
B would be the best choice
C is just deflection, it does not help anything. we saw it happening so every single thing just goes out the window?
D is just saying that the theory is write so the opposite of what we want to do.
E is misguided, we are not saying that neutron stars are not born from supernovas we are saying that SOME supernovas don't produce neutron stars, that has nothing to do with other ways of producing neutron stars.
So it is just B, go figure
