In many counterintuitive topics in today’s society, such as rape, assault, police brutality, abortion, etc., there are difficulties in creating arguments that are valid causally and instead create correlations that do not specifically address the reactions to actions that are made. This approach to developing an argument is risky, because so many writers lack the skills to identify causal arguments that are effective or ineffective. This problem does not exist with Pluto’s identity as a planet for a simple reason; the standards for describing a planetary body are clearly laid out by the IAU.
The IAU had established three guidelines for what it means to be classified as a planet in our solar system. These guidelines are as follows: a planet must orbit the sun, a planet must be round, and the planet must “clear the neighborhood” around its orbit. These standards seem pretty straightforward, and were accepted in Pluto’s demotion from planetary status. But that does not mean the conversation about Pluto ended there. There were many controversial arguments created based on these guidelines that contradict the IAU’s guidelines.
The first two statements have very rarely been argued as being unfair requirements for a planet. It must orbit the sun, and it must contain enough pressure to develop a spherical shape. These qualities are widely agreed upon to describe a planet, and if the guidelines ended there, there would be no further discussion on Pluto’s status. However, the third guideline creates the most anguish about the topic because it is such a gray area. The IAU made this guideline for the ruling of Pluto’s status and it seems that it is unfair to be a true guideline. Pluto is a part of the Kuiper Belt which contains many celestial bodies that are relatively near in size and mass to Pluto. Due to Pluto’s place in the belt, the IAU created the “clear the neighborhood” clause to demote Pluto of any planetary status. It is true that none of the other eight planets are a part of any belt or are comparable in size to any bodies orbiting the sun, but Pluto is the only one that fits into this category. It is safe to say that the IAU created this third and final guideline to exclude Pluto from being a planet, and this quality alone is the lone reason why Pluto will not regain its planetary status until an amendment is made.
Why Pluto Shouldn’t Be A Planet Howe, Alex R. “Why Pluto Really Shouldn’t Be a Planet.” Science Meets Fiction. N.p., 01 Aug. 2015. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
Why Is Pluto No Longer A Planet? Rincon, Paul. “Why Is Pluto No Longer a Planet?”BBC News. N.p., 13 July 2015. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
Why Pluto Is No Longer A Planet Cain, Fraser. “Why Pluto Is No Longer a Planet.”Universe Today. N.p., 05 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.
Your argument isn’t entirely accurate. The guidelines may be clear NOW, but you haven’t begun to describe the cause and effect chain that resulted in the changes to the rules that disqualified Pluto from planethood. The most interesting part of the story isn’t told here: why would astronomers NEED to exclude Pluto? Was it simply to avoid having to add similar bodies to the roster?