Lines can be parallel in

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   There are no parallel lines in the non-Euclidean system of geometry that has the

   Why this is right

   The author is saying, "If non-Euclidean geometry correctly describes our universe, then there are no parallel lines in our universe", so the author is definitely assuming that there are no parallel lines according to non-Euclidean geometry. If we negated this, it would badly weaken the argument (which is true of every correct answer on Necessary Assumption). If we said, "Hey, author, there are parallel lines in non-Euclidean, that would basically ruin his argument."

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
2. B

   Out of Scope: most physicists5% picked this

   Most physicists have not doubted the view that the universe is correctly described by the non-Euclidean system of geometry that

   The word "most" is wrong 99% of the time we see it on Necessary Assumption. In this argument, the author is saying, "If these several physicists are right, then ____ ." He doesn't need to assume anything about any other physicists.

   5%
3. C

   Too Strong9% picked this

   There are no parallel lines in every non-Euclidean system of geometry that has

   Too Strong: every / any Out of Scope: other non-Euclid systems We might not have noticed until this answer that the argument implies that there are multiple non-Euclidean systems of geometry, because the premise specifies that we're talking about the non-Euclidean system with the most empirical verification. The author's argument is only about that specific non-Euclidean system, so she doesn't need to assume anything about any other non-Euclidean system.

   9%
4. D

   Never Assumes the Trigger11% picked this

   The universe is correctly described by the non-Euclidean system of geometry that has the most empirical verification if prominent

   This conclusion is a conditional: if these physicists are right (i.e. if that most verified non-Euclidean system correctly describes our universe), then there are no parallel lines When we make conditional claims, like, "If humans lived on Mars, there would still be racism", we aren't assuming that humans will one day live on Mars. When I say, "If Presidents were allowed to serve 10 terms, then we would at some point have the same President for forty years", I'm not assuming that Presidents will be allowed to serve 10 terms. Any time we're dealing a conditional conclusion, we'll usually see a trap answer directed at this misunderstanding. The author isn't assuming the trigger is true. We can't strengthen the argument in any way by saying the trigger is true. We can't weaken the argument by saying the trigger is false.

   11%
5. E

   Too Strong: only1% picked this

   Only physicists who are not prominent doubt the view that the universe is correctly described by the non-Euclidean system of geometry that

   The author has told us that several prominent physicists believe X. This answer is taking that statement and saying, "So what you're saying is .... the only physicists who would doubt X are non-prominent ones?" That's a ridiculously bad interpretation. If say "several Senators like mayonnaise with their french fries", it's possible that many Senators don't like mayo with their fries. We can't twist that into, "The only people who don't like mayo on their fries are non-Senators".

   1%