New Age philosopher: Nature evolves

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Necessary vs. Sufficient2% picked this

   takes for granted that if a statement must be true for the argument’s conclusion to be true, then that statement’s truth is sufficient

   This seems to be describing the #1 famous flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional premise and then gets to her conclusion by applying that conditional rule in some illegal backwards or negated way. There’s no conditional logic in these premises, so this flaw would not apply.

   2%
2. B

   Not an Objection15% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that the overall structure of a phenomenon is not always identical to the overall structure of the reasoning that

   Because this answer starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat it like Weaken and ask ourselves, “does it hurt the argument so say, hey author — sometimes the structure of a phenomenon is X but the structure of the reasoning people do about it is Y”? This would only be an objection if the author believed that the structure of a phenomenon is always the same as that of the reasoning people do about this phenomenon. She told us that the structure of nature is organic / nonlinear / holistic. Was she assuming that the structure of the reasoning people do about nature is always organic / nonlinear / holistic? No. She wasn’t saying the reasoning people do about nature is always that way, she was suggesting it should always be that way. She’s saying “if you want the best understanding of nature, then you must use organic / holistic reasoning.” If I say, “If you want to be in the best health, you need to exercise every day”, does that mean I’m thinking that “people always exercise every day”? Of course not.

   15%
3. C

   Not Part vs. Whole6% picked this

   fails to distinguish adequately between the characteristics of a phenomenon as a whole and those of the deliberately

   This may have tempted us if we thought that this argument was potentially making a Part vs. Whole move. But the author didn’t spell out any characteristics of deliberately isolated parts of a phenomenon and then conclude that those characteristics also apply to the whole (or vice versa). This author seems very on top of the distinction between nature as a whole and nature as a series of deliberately isolated parts. That distinction is motivating her to say, “Don’t study the isolated parts. Study the whole.”

   6%
4. D

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: cannot9% picked this

   takes for granted that what is interconnected cannot, through abstraction, be thought

   Because this answer starts with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, , we can treat it like Necessary Assumption and ask ourselves, “does the author have to believe that it’s impossible through abstraction to think of interconnected things as separate?” No she doesn’t. In fact by acknowledging the linear way of reasoning, in which we do deliberately separate parts of interconnected nature, she is acknowledging that we can think of interconnected things as separate. (B) was about whether people are thinking about nature in a linear, isolated way. (D) is about whether people can think about nature in a linear, isolated way. Her argument is about whether we should about nature in a linear, isolated way.

   9%
5. E

   Correct68% picked this

   takes for granted that a phenomenon that can best be understood as having certain properties can best be understood only through

   Why this is right

   Because this answer starts with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can treat it like Necessary Assumption and ask ourselves, “was the author assuming this?” The author did make this assumption. She established that the phenomenon of Nature can best be understood as having certain properties (organic / nonlinear / holistic), and then she moved to the idea that only organic / nonlinear / holistic reasoning can attain that best understanding. But it could be that even though the best understanding is holistic, you don't have to use holistic reasoning in order to arrive at that best understanding. This answer basically provides a conditional idea that mirrors the logic move the author made:

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

   68%