Until recently it was widely believed

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong5% picked this

   equates mere interest in a subject with real understanding of

   Too Strong: interest = understanding Out of Scope: real understanding The author never acted like interest in a subject is identical to understanding. In fact, real understanding is out of scope. And interest is only discussed in an inessential modifier that isn't part of the conclusion or evidence.

   5%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw19% picked this

   takes for granted that because one thing follows another, the one must have been caused

   This refers to the famous Causal flaw, which is not what this is. There is a before / after here, if we say BEFORE: thought there were only a few Partheno's AFTER: discovered some more Partheno's But the author certainly isn't saying that our earlier thinking caused our new discoveries.

   19%
3. C

   Correct66% picked this

   takes ignorance of the occurrence of something as conclusive evidence that it

   Why this is right

   This is just a creative way of them saying that the author is failing to distinguish between greater awareness that X exists and increased existence of X. If someone thinks seeing more of X = there is more X they think not seeing X = there isn't X When we discover the existence of parthenogenesis in sharks, should we think, "They've always had it, but we just noticed it" or "They haven't had it until just now"? The author is thinking the 2nd way. He thinks previously sharks did not reproduce through parthenogenesis. But now they do. That's the only way to think that shark parthenogenesis has increased the number of species capable of parthenogenesis.

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

   66%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw7% picked this

   overlooks a crucial difference between two situations that the argument presents

   This sounds like an objection to a dubious Comparison. The things presented as similar were sharks and Komodo dragons (they were both recently discovered to be capable of parthenogenesis). This answer is saying that our primary objection to this argument is, "But there's an important difference between sharks and Komodo dragons ... !" We definitely weren't making that kind of objection.

   7%
5. E

   Too Strong: Newer = Better2% picked this

   presumes that because research is new it is, on that basis alone, better

   Our author isn't comparing the quality of newer research to older research, and certainly not making the extreme claim that newer guarantees better. He says that an older belief (very few do parthenogenesis) is potentially being modified in light of new discoveries (whoa, did you know sharks and Komodo dragons do parthenogenesis too?)

   2%