PT150 S2 Q12 ExplanationScientist: Some pundits claim

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: manipulate0% picked this

   Alleged scientific claims may be used to manipulate people, and it is understandable that people would be on

   The author doesn't need to assume that scientific claims may manipulate people. That concept is totally unmentioned thus far. If we negate this and say, "Hey, author -- scientific claims can't be used to manipulate people", would that hurt the argument? Not at all. The author would be like, "Yeah, I agree. Scientific claims can't manipulate people. Maybe that's part of why the public isn't afraid of scientists."

   0%
2. B

   Out of Scope: really about1% picked this

   If a person understood what science is really about, then that person would not be

   The notion of "what science is really about" vs. "what people think it's about" was not discussed. The author hasn't committed to any position on there even being a difference between what people think science is about and what it's really about. This out of scope concept is our easiest way to get rid of this answer. Only keep reading this explanation if you were tempted by this answer. Some people might find this answer tempting as a potential inference. After all, this author thinks that the public currently is not afraid of scientists. So wouldn't the author think that if the public were eating meatloaf, they wouldn't be afraid of scientists? If tomorrow is a Tuesday, then the public would not be afraid of scientists. If they knew what science was really about, then the public would not be afraid of scientists. Since the author believes the outcome of this conditional, does it even matter what the trigger is? Won't the author believe the outcome no matter what? No, not necessarily. I could say "most Americans enjoy eating meat". Am I assuming that, "if Americans knew where their meat came from, they would enjoy eating meat"? No, I'm not. I think most Americans enjoy eating meat in part because they don't know where their meat comes from. Similarly, this author could believe that people currently aren't afraid of scientists, in part because they don't know what science is really all about (maybe the truth is actually terrifying but the current misconception is not).

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope: technological developments1% picked this

   People may be apprehensive about technological developments that result from science even if they are not

   The author never talks about technological developments, so she hasn't committed to any views regarding that subject. It wouldn't change or hurt the author's argument if people are apprehensive about new tech or aren't. She's only arguing they're not afraid of scientists, which wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

   1%
4. D

   Correct96% picked this

   If the public were afraid of scientists, then over several decades a scientist would encounter at least one person

   Why this is right

   If we ever see the Conclusion as part of the trigger, then the answer is automatically wrong. For example, if an answer said, (A) If the public is unafraid of scientists, then ... We'd immediately eliminate it. The conclusion is supposed to be on the right side (the outcome) of a conditional reasoning move. We want to see premise ? conclusion However, when you contrapose that reasoning move (as so many correct answers do), you get: not conclusion ? not premise So seeing the negation of the conclusion in the trigger is a great sign. That's what we're seeing here. The answer says, if public is afraid over several decades of scientists ? a scientist would meet someone afraid of sci's And the contrapositive of this looks just like the Premise ? Conclusion move of the argument! If over several decades public is not a scientist has not met ? afraid of someone afraid of sci's scientists

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

   96%
5. E

   Illegal Negation2% picked this

   Anyone who claims to be afraid of scientists is actually afraid

   One of our objections was, "Hey, author -- what if these people you meet that say they're not afraid of scientists are lying, and they actually are afraid of scientists". So the author, to rule out that objection, has to be assuming, "If someone claims they're not afraid of scientists, then we should believe that they are actually not afraid of scientists". This answer is giving us an illegal negation of that, saying, "if someone claims they are afraid of scientists, then we should believe that they actually are afraid." If we negate this, we're saying to the author that "some people who say they're afraid of scientists aren't actually afraid." That doesn't hurt the argument. That actually strengthens the conclusion.

   2%