Scientist: Isaac Newton’s Principia, the

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   It is raised as a potential objection to the argument’s main conclusion, but its truth is called into

   Out of Scope: truth called into doubt The first half of this is close to being fine, but the second half has no support. The author is never calling into doubt the truth of the claim that "modern science is wicked confusing to most people". She is fully accepting the truth of that idea and saying, "But don't worry. They felt the same about Newton as we do about our modern science. Eventually a basic understanding might spread. There won't necessarily always be this barrier to understanding."

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong: only superficially different5% picked this

   It is a premise that supports the argument’s main conclusion by suggesting that the results of recent scientific research are only superficially different

   The author is saying that recent scientific research has one thing in common with Newton's Principia -- they both at first can only be understood by a small group of knowledgeable science type people. But it's way stronger to say that recent research is only superficially different from Newton's claims (i.e. they are essentially the same claims).

   5%
3. C

   Wrong Role21% picked this

   It is cited as further evidence for the conclusion that the barriers to communication between scientists and the

   Our claim is not evidence. It doesn't have a Supporting relationship to the main conclusion. It is a potential reason to doubt the conclusion, but it is countered by the intermediate conclusion that "the barriers to communication between scientists and the public are not impermeable".

   21%
4. D

   Correct68% picked this

   It is a claim that serves mainly to help establish the relevance of the preceding statements to

   Why this is right

   This answer doesn't identify the relationship between our claim and the final conclusion (our claim somewhat undermines the plausibility of the final conclusion). But it accurately says that our claim is one of the key ways that the author is making her argument by analogy. If we were never told that recent scientific research can only be understood by a small circle of people, then we would have no idea why we talked about Newton's Principia in the preceding sentences. If that final sentence just said, "Thus recent scientific research may also become part of everyone's heritage", we'd wonder what the connection was to the previous two sentences ... are you saying that recent research is also something that can at first be understood by only a handful of people?

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

   68%
5. E

   Opposite0% picked this

   It serves to cast doubt on an alleged similarity between Newton’s Principia and

   Our claim is meant to provide the underlying similarity between Newton's Principia and recent scientific research, not to cast doubt on the similarity.

   0%