Science fiction creates an appetite

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct68% picked this

   The fact that the appetite for interstellar space exploration cannot be satisfied with any technology humanity will soon possess has created a gap

   Why this is right

   This is supplying that Link Between Premises we were missing. The author established that "sci-fi created an appetite", and she established that "a reality/expectation gap leads to discontent". But she hadn't yet proven that "sci-fi led to discontent", because she never established that "creating an appetite leads to a reality/expectation gap". If we negated this, it would weaken, because it would say, "Hey, author. Sure, sci-fi has created an appetite that won't soon be satisfied. But the fact that the appetite won't soon be satisfied has not created a reality/expectation gap."

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

   68%
2. B

   Reversed Logic Too Strong5% picked this

   If science fiction has created an unproductive dissatisfaction with the way the world actually is, it has done so only by creating an appetite

   Reversed Logic Too Strong: only by If-Conclusion The conclusion is saying that "sci-fi has created an unproductive dissatisfaction". This answer is putting that idea into the trigger of an If/Then statement. That is wrong 100% of the time. We never want to see our Conclusion in the trigger, only in the outcome. (It's okay to see the negation of the Conclusion in the trigger, because that's what the contrapositive looks like. And it's okay to see some noun/phrase from the conclusion in the trigger, but it's never okay to see the actual sentence of the conclusion in the trigger.) So as soon as we see the entire conclusion in the trigger, we can throw this out. This answer is also saying something Too Strong, because it's claiming that the only way sci-fi has created discontent is through generating an appetite for space travel. If I say, "Bruno robbed a bank. Thus, Bruno is a criminal", am I assuming that "the only way in which Bruno has committed criminal acts is by robbing a bank"? No. Just because that's the only crime I mentioned doesn't mean that I'm assuming that the's only crime there is.

   5%
3. C

   Out of Scope: other appetites6% picked this

   Few if any of the appetites that science fiction has created in people could be satisfied with any

   We already know that the appetite for space travel will not be soon satisfied. This answer is addressing whether other appetites (beyond that one) are also ones that will not be soon satisfied. The author doesn't need to assume anything about whether there are other unsatisfied appetites created by sci-fi. If there are, that would potentially help the author argue that sci-fi has created discontent. But even if there aren't, the author's argument isn't harmed. As long as she can successfully show that the appetite for space travel has created discontent, then she can prove that sci-fi has created discontent.

   6%
4. D

   Too Strong: most9% picked this

   Most people unrealistically expect that technology that humanity will soon possess could satisfy the appetite

   The argument is definitely thinking that as a result of sci-fi, at least some people now have an appetite for space travel as well as an expectation for it. And since we won't possess that technology any time soon, it is an unrealistic expectation that humanity will soon possess it. But, the author definitely doesn't need to assume anything about most people. It wouldn't make any difference whether 49% or 51% of people have an unrealistic expectation based on sci-fi. If anyone has an unrealistic expectation based on sci-fi, then the author's conclusion is correct; sci-fi has fostered some discontent. The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time we see it.

   9%
5. E

   Illegal Negation11% picked this

   If the appetites science fiction has created in people could all be satisfied with technologies that humanity will soon possess, then science fiction could

   This is taking the reasoning core of the argument and just inverting it. The argument was thinking, "If the appetites created by sci-fi can't be satisfied any time soon, then sci-fi has created an unproductive dissatisfaction". This answer is accusing the author of having argued, "If the appetites created by sci-fi could be satisfied any time soon, sci-fi could not create an unproductive dissatisfaction".

   11%