If that’s not enough to dissuade you from silicon, consider this: there’s just a lot more carbon around. Cooked up in the searing interiors of stars, the cosmic abundance of carbon is more than ten times that of silicon. And by the way, if silicon is a distant second in the biology sweepstakes, the elements under it in the periodic table – germanium, tin and lead – are worse. They’re less abundant, and less inclined to make biologically interesting compounds.Of course, one must always beware of hubris in speculating on the properties of extraterrestrial life. Earth is just one planet among many billions in our galaxy. But when the Enterprise boldly goes in search of life among the stars, there’s good reason its scanners perk up at any sign of carbon-based chemistry.What is the author’s main point in the last paragraph?

The second most abundant element in the Earth is Group of answer choicesIron.Oxygen.Silicon.Aluminum.

Which element is less electronegative than silicon (Si)?The Periodic TableA.Magnesium (Mg)B.Carbon (C)C.Oxygen (O)D.Sulfur (S)

What is the most abundant element in the Universe?

It’s a question as common as brown dogs: will alien life be carbon-based? I’m asked this frequently, although I’m not sure why the public is so hung up on the elemental basis of extraterrestrial life. Probably, the fascination with vital soot is just a consequence of carbon’s high profile on Star Trek. The plot of this popular TV series gets viscous whenever the Enterprise detects ‘carbon-based life forms’ on some God-forsaken planet deep in the Galaxy’s nether regions. Hype aside,. . . there’s good reason why this element is the basis for life on Earth, and probably on most other worlds that shelter biology.If you remember your high school chemistry, you’ll recall that carbon has half of its outer electron shell filled. And because carbon’s outer shell is both half-filled and half empty, it can handily hook up with other carbon atoms, creating the sort of elaborate molecular chains and rings that fuel companies love to pump. Carbon, in other words, is adept at making complex structures. And complex structures are the bricks of life.Are there other contenders? Is carbon really so special, or did it just get lucky here on Earth? If you have a periodic table handy, you’ll note that the element situated under carbon is silicon, which also has four electrons in its outer shell. Ergo, silicon might also seem to be an obvious basis for life, a point that was first made at the end of the nineteenth century by the German astrophysicist, Julius Scheiner. The optimistic Scheiner was certain that other planets in our solar system (including roasty toasty Mercury) sported life.But his sunny attitude was misplaced when it comes to silicon-based beings. Silicon may be carbon’s chemical cousin, but it’s a poor relation. Because the silicon atom is larger, its bonds with other elements are weaker. While carbon hooks up with two oxygen atoms to make carbon dioxide, a nice waste product for both humans and SUV’s, the silicon equivalent, silicon dioxide, quickly assembles itself into a crystalline lattice. It’s better known as sand, and would make exhaling a gritty experience. The weaker bonds of silicon also preclude the easy formation of those long, same-atom molecular chains that underlie many biological compounds.If that’s not enough to dissuade you from silicon, consider this: there’s just a lot more carbon around. Cooked up in the searing interiors of stars, the cosmic abundance of carbon is more than ten times that of silicon. And by the way, if silicon is a distant second in the biology sweepstakes, the elements under it in the periodic table – germanium, tin and lead – are worse. They’re less abundant, and less inclined to make biologically interesting compounds.Of course, one must always beware of hubris in speculating on the properties of extraterrestrial life. Earth is just one planet among many billions in our galaxy. But when the Enterprise boldly goes in search of life among the stars, there’s good reason its scanners perk up at any sign of carbon-based chemistry.The central idea of the passage is:

It’s a question as common as brown dogs: will alien life be carbon-based? I’m asked this frequently, although I’m not sure why the public is so hung up on the elemental basis of extraterrestrial life. Probably, the fascination with vital soot is just a consequence of carbon’s high profile on Star Trek. The plot of this popular TV series gets viscous whenever the Enterprise detects ‘carbon-based life forms’ on some God-forsaken planet deep in the Galaxy’s nether regions. Hype aside,. . . there’s good reason why this element is the basis for life on Earth, and probably on most other worlds that shelter biology.If you remember your high school chemistry, you’ll recall that carbon has half of its outer electron shell filled. And because carbon’s outer shell is both half-filled and half empty, it can handily hook up with other carbon atoms, creating the sort of elaborate molecular chains and rings that fuel companies love to pump. Carbon, in other words, is adept at making complex structures. And complex structures are the bricks of life.Are there other contenders? Is carbon really so special, or did it just get lucky here on Earth? If you have a periodic table handy, you’ll note that the element situated under carbon is silicon, which also has four electrons in its outer shell. Ergo, silicon might also seem to be an obvious basis for life, a point that was first made at the end of the nineteenth century by the German astrophysicist, Julius Scheiner. The optimistic Scheiner was certain that other planets in our solar system (including roasty toasty Mercury) sported life.But his sunny attitude was misplaced when it comes to silicon-based beings. Silicon may be carbon’s chemical cousin, but it’s a poor relation. Because the silicon atom is larger, its bonds with other elements are weaker. While carbon hooks up with two oxygen atoms to make carbon dioxide, a nice waste product for both humans and SUV’s, the silicon equivalent, silicon dioxide, quickly assembles itself into a crystalline lattice. It’s better known as sand, and would make exhaling a gritty experience. The weaker bonds of silicon also preclude the easy formation of those long, same-atom molecular chains that underlie many biological compounds.If that’s not enough to dissuade you from silicon, consider this: there’s just a lot more carbon around. Cooked up in the searing interiors of stars, the cosmic abundance of carbon is more than ten times that of silicon. And by the way, if silicon is a distant second in the biology sweepstakes, the elements under it in the periodic table – germanium, tin and lead – are worse. They’re less abundant, and less inclined to make biologically interesting compounds.Of course, one must always beware of hubris in speculating on the properties of extraterrestrial life. Earth is just one planet among many billions in our galaxy. But when the Enterprise boldly goes in search of life among the stars, there’s good reason its scanners perk up at any sign of carbon-based chemistry.Which of the following best sums up the author’s main point in paragraph 4?