Some philosophers explain visual

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Premise Match7% picked this

   According to some linguists, many of the world's languages can be traced back to a common source known as Inda-European. However, Inda-European cannot be

   This does have a rebuttal conclusion, and it does have an "implications of logic" beginning to its evidence. However, instead of saying "If Inda-European were the first language, then there would be an absurd chain of requirements", it says "If it were first, there would be an unlikely consequence that we have overwhelming evidence against."

   7%
2. B

   Weak Premise Match4% picked this

   The claim that any scientific theory is adequate as long as it agrees with all the empirical data cannot be correct. For there are

   There is a rebuttal conclusion, but the evidence doesn't follow an "implications of logic" trajectory; meaning, it never says "if that view were true, then A would be true" or "but that view requires A". The argument is implicitly arguing with the implications of the claim, but the implications lead to a contradiction, not absurdity (the infinite regress of mental images and inner viewers wasn't a contradiction, it was just a silly thought that isn't likely to be true).

   4%
3. C

   Correct78% picked this

   Some historians claim that no theory is ever genuinely new; no matter how clever a theory is, there is always a precedent theory that

   Why this is right

   This has the rebuttal conclusion, and evidence saying that the implications of the view we're rejecting would be an infinite regress that is absurd. If every theory has a theory that it borrowed heavily from, then how do you ever explain "the 1st theory". If visual perception is really just a mental image forming in our mind, and then we have to visually perceive that mental image, then how does it ever end?

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

   78%
4. D

   Trap8% picked this

   Some engineers define a structure's foundation as that part of the structure that supports the rest of the structure. This definition is unfortunate, however,

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match Word Trap: absurd This conclusion isn't quite a rebuttal; it's not saying "this definition is untrue / incorrect". It's saying the definition is unfortunate. And the evidence doesn't have anything to do with, "if it were true, it would lead to an infinite loop". It's more like, "this definition gives off a misleading impression".

   8%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   Some people claim that the first library was the library of Alexandria, which for many centuries contained the largest collection of books in the

   This argument does reject a claim in its conclusion, but its evidence does not sound like, "If the claim were true, an absurd infinite loop would result". Instead, the evidence says, "This claim is not accurate. We know things that make it inaccurate."

   3%