People ought to take into account

Answer choices

1. A

   Illegal Opposite15% picked this

   fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are

   When we see fails to establish X, we just ask ourselves, "Did the author need to establish X? Was that one of her assumptions?" The author seems to be assuming that "if a discipline has blemished origins, we might not think of them being as valuable". This answer is saying the author was assuming "if a discipline has unblemished origins, then it is valuable", which is trying to pull an illegal opposite with one of the author's actual assumptions.

   15%
2. B

   Correct60% picked this

   fails to consider how chemistry’s current theories and practices differ from those of

   Why this is right

   Can we object to this argument by talking about how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists? Yes, potentially. If we say "author, chemistry is currently a scientific discipline that has nothing to do with magic and superstition. It is a highly rigorous and accomplished science. Thus, if we're assessing the scientific value of chemistry, shouldn't we look at what it is, not what it was?" If we're assessing the value of a novel, should we take into account the blemishes of the first draft of the manuscript?

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

   60%
3. C

   Opposite: Contradict Not a Flaw10% picked this

   uses an example to contradict the principle

   The author used an example to support the principle under consideration. Also, there's nothing inherently flawed or wrong about using an example to contradict a principle under consideration, so it would be weird to imagine a situation where this would be a correct answer (it would have to be like the famous Internal Contradiction flaw, where an author is arguing for Principle X but introduces an example that contradicts Principle X).

   10%
4. D

   Too Strong: Most Reversed Logic13% picked this

   does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are

   Does not prove = fails to specify = assumes Did the author assume not scientifically ? probably have valuable blemished origins No, she was closer to assuming has blemished ? probably not origins sci valuable

   13%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   uses the word “discipline” in two

   This refers to the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same term or concept in two very different ways. There are different meanings to discipline: Discipline - a field of study Discipline - punishment Discipline - rigorous adherence to a standard But the author only used it consistently to mean "a field of study".

   2%