The reading passage discusses three theories about how the moon was formed. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on those proposals made in the article. He believes that all these hypotheses are not convincing.
To begin with, The author asserts that the moon could have been formed when a piece of earth broke off from the Pacific Ocean basin due to high speed of earth's spinning. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this claim. He indicates that this idea is faced with two problems. First, Findings show that the moon was hotter than the earth. Second, Rock samples from the moon reveal a different chemical composition than that of the earth.
Moreover, the lecturer challenges the idea that the moon was born at the same time with the earth from the same nebula by aggregation of small particles to form a much larger body. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture points out flaws in this argument. He states that the iron core in the moon is much smaller than the earth and accounts for only 25%. In contrast, the iron core of the earth constitutes 50% of the total mass.
Finally, the excerpt posits that the collision theory could be true. It postulates that the moon was formed when a giant body, about the size of Mars, collided with the earth generating massive amount of debris, which finally coalesced to make the moon. This does not ring plausible for the lecturer. He poses the question why only one moon was formed, and not a group of moons. In addition, another question is why there is no chemical evidence for extreme evaporation due to this gigantic impact.
The reading passage discusses three theories about how the moon was
formed
.
However
, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on those proposals made in the article. He believes that all these hypotheses are not convincing.
To
begin
with, The author asserts that the moon could have been
formed
when a piece of
earth
broke off from the Pacific Ocean basin due to high speed of earth's spinning.
On the other hand
, the lecturer refutes this claim. He indicates that this
idea
is faced
with two problems.
First
, Findings
show
that the moon was hotter than the
earth
. Second, Rock samples from the moon reveal a
different
chemical composition than that of the earth.
Moreover
, the lecturer challenges the
idea
that the moon
was born
at the same time with the
earth
from the same nebula by aggregation of
small
particles to form a much larger body.
Nevertheless
, the professor in the lecture points out flaws in this argument. He states that the iron core in the moon is much smaller than the
earth
and accounts for
only
25%.
In contrast
, the iron core of the
earth
constitutes 50% of the total mass.
Finally
, the excerpt posits that the collision theory could be true. It postulates that the moon was
formed
when a giant body, about the size of Mars, collided with the
earth
generating massive amount of debris, which
finally
coalesced to
make
the moon. This does not ring plausible for the lecturer. He poses
the question why
only
one moon was
formed
, and not a group of moons.
In addition
, another question is why there is no chemical evidence for extreme evaporation due to this gigantic impact.