Science journalist: Europa, a moon

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match Not a Flaw10% picked this

   takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then such life could not

   The author takes for granted that if a condition would be necessary for the evolution of life as we know it, then any place that satisfies that condition is likely to have at least primitive life. The first part matches Evidence (water is required for life as we know it), and the second part is supposed to match Conclusion (Europa probably has life). This answer accuses the author of concluding "Every planet without water cannot possibly have life as we know it". Not only does that not even resemble our actual conclusion, it's not at all flawed to say that. If a condition would be necessary for X, then X could not exist anywhere that this condition does not hold.

   10%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   fails to address adequately the possibility that there are conditions necessary for the evolution of life in addition to

   Why this is right

   Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, author --- there are things in addition to liquid water that are required for life to evolve"? Absolutely. Supposed someone said, "Harvard Law requires that you have at least a 2.0 GPA in order to be admitted. Maria has higher than a 2.0 GPA. Thus, Maria is likely to be admitted to Harvard." We'd say, "she also needs at least a 150 on her LSAT. Does she have that? She also needs to write a good personal statement. Did she do that?" When an author treats a necessary condition as though it's sufficient (or in this case, as though it's likely to be sufficient), they're failing to consider that there might be other requirements as well, which might not be met.

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

   79%
3. C

   Not an Assumption2% picked this

   takes for granted that life is likely to be present on Europa if, but only if,

   This answer is saying the author refuses to believe that there could ever be life on Europa that evolved somewhere else (for example, maybe there are some spores of bacteria on a meteorite that crashes into Europa, and the bacteria manage to survive). Our author wasn't talking about anything resembling that sort of scenario, where life comes to Europa from somewhere else. So we have no way to say our author assumes it's impossible for that to happen. This answer is objecting to an argument that would have sounded like this: "We found life on Europa. So, apparently, life can evolve on Europa."

   2%
4. D

   Doesn't Overlook4% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that there could be unfamiliar forms of life that have evolved without the

   The author doesn't overlook that possibility. By saying "Life as we know it could only evolve in the presence of water", the author is allowing for the possibility that some form of life we don't know might be able to evolve w/o water. Even if we miss that phrase, we wouldn't pick this, because it's not an objection to this author to say that "Yo, author --- there might be some weird forms of life that evolve without water being present." He'd be like, "Okay. What does that have to do my claim that there is life on Europa, where water is present?"

   4%
5. E

   Too Strong: nothing else could account4% picked this

   takes for granted that no conditions on Europa other than the supposed presence of liquid water could have accounted for the

   The author's language isn't as extreme as this answer suggests. He says that the data transmitted strongly suggests that there is liquid water, which means he has allowed for the possibility that there isn't actually liquid water and that the ice is there for some other reason.

   4%