Astronomer: Does a recent meteorite

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong2% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the authorities cited have always held the views

   The author doesn't need to assume that these three scientists have always held the views we're talking about. It wouldn't hurt the author's argument if 7 year old Tagar had a different view, for instance. It wouldn't even hurt the argument if any of these scientists had a different view at some earlier point in their professional career. Scientists are allowed (and encouraged) to update their views as new data and better theories emerge.

   2%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   The argument provides no justification for giving preference to the views of one rather than the other of

   Why this is right

   Does the author give preference to one set of authorities over another? Sure, she says "Tagar cannot be right, because he doesn't accept the views of Widerski and Martian", which implies that Tagar should accept the views of Widerski and Martian. But why should he? Does the author provide any justification for why we should think that Widerski and M are correct in their views, and Tagar must abide by their views? No. This is a rare but recurring pattern in which an argument presents a He Said / She Said type divide and then arbitrarily chooses one over the other without citing a reason for trusting once source over the other. If you want to see two more, look at the Flaw questions on Test 51. One is about studies regarding strenuous vs. nonstrenuous exercise. The other is about Typological vs. Mainstream classification of species.

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

   74%
3. C

   Out of Scope: number of authorities13% picked this

   The argument takes for granted that the number of authorities supporting a particular hypothesis is an indication of

   This answer is tempting if we're asking ourselves, "hey, author, why are you favoring Widerski and Martian's views over Tagar's views?" We might speculate that it's because it's 2 vs. 1, but the author never says anything to the effect of, "Since more authorities think that bacteria can be that small in volume than think it can't be, it's more likely that bacteria could be 0.1% the volume of Earth's smallest bacteria." The argument wouldn't change at all if the author were rejecting Widerski and Martian and instead favoring Tagar. We would still be asking, "How did you pick one view over the other?" and the flaw would still be that the author didn't give us any reason why she picked one over the other.

   13%
4. D

   Not a Flaw5% picked this

   The argument appeals to views that contradict rather than support

   In this case, appealing to contradictory views was the whole point of the argument. It's not a flaw to say, "X must be wrong, because X's view contradicts with Y's view", as long as you add in the necessary premise of "And Y's view is correct."

   5%
5. E

   Too Strong: all / equally Contradicted6% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the opinions of all experts

   The author certainly doesn't need to assume that 100% of expert opinions have identical legitimacy. Not to mention, this assumption is contradicted by the fact that the author seems to think that Tagar's expert opinion is not well justified, whereas Widerski and Tagars expert opinion is.

   6%