Television network executive: Some scientists

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct60% picked this

   It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being

   Why this is right

   Would it be an objection to this argument to say that "X can steadily advance, even when it is being impeded by Y"? Yes. The premise is talking about scientific understanding steadily advancing, despite there having always been ghost stories. The conclusion is saying that therefore scientific understanding is not being impeded. This objection points out that you can steadily advance, even if you're being impeded. To impede the flow of traffic ? to STOP the flow of traffic. We say "there's a fender bender in the middle lane that's impeding the flow of traffic." Cars are still able to steadily advance past the accident, but they have to slow down a bunch to switch out of the middle lane, so the overall traffic flow is impeded. Similarly, we could say to this author that scientific understanding has still advanced, but it has advanced much more slowly than it would otherwise without the headwinds of superstition and paranormal beliefs.

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

   60%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they

   This describes the famous Causal Flaw, but the author is not positing a causal conclusion. She's actually saying something anti-causal in her conclusion. She doesn't think that ghost TV shows are causing any inhibition of scientific understanding.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former

   Can we object to this argument by saying that "the occurrence of X can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of Y, even if X does not impede Y." No, this would be objecting to an argument that is saying, "Betty's frequent exposure to the sun does not impede the growth of freckles on her face. Thus her exposure to the sun has no effect on the pervasiveness of freckles on her face." It's resisting a move from "didn't impede" to "has no effect on prevalence". For the author's argument, we need an objection resisting the move from "X has always advanced, despite the presence of Y" to "Y is not impeding X".

   12%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not

   Any answer structured fails to consider that just because X is true, Y doesn't have to be true should have X match the evidence and Y match the conclusion. Do we have evidence that "one phenomenon is known to affect another"? Nope. We can stop reading there.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match23% picked this

   It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases

   This is tricky. Pause after the first part of the answer to match up the abstract wording with the specifics of the argument. Are we ever saying that "the contention that X causes Y is baseless"? Yeah, basically, in our conclusion, we're saying "the contention that ghost TV shows causes impeded scientific understanding is baseless". So now we plug those ideas into the second half: the latter phenomenon (impeded scientific understanding) has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former (ghost TV shows). Did the author say that there had been steady increases in the pervasiveness of ghost TV shows (or ghost stories, if we're being charitable)? No, there are numerous highly popular ghost TV shows, but the author hasn't said that ghost stories are a steadily increasing phenomenon. She said that scientific understanding was. So already we've seen a broken idea that would let us disqualify the answer. We could ALSO complain about this answer that the author never said that impeded scientific understanding has persisted. The author is saying the opposite, that (unimpeded) scientific understanding has persisted / advanced. There's no way to match up the concept from the argument to the first half without making the second half of the answer nonsensical, or vice versa.

   23%