Philosopher: As many prominent physicists

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   It fails to consider whether anything other than physical objects may be composed purely of

   When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken or could be used as an objection. If we said, "Hey, author -- there are other things that are also composed purely of mass and energy", that wouldn't weaken at all. We're only weakening if we can suggest that "physical objects aren't theoretical constructs" (or if we're targeting the intermediate conclusion and suggesting that "mass is not a theoretical construct").

   1%
2. B

   Correct66% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that something may lack a feature even if it is composed purely of things

   Why this is right

   When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken or could be used as an objection. This answer would work as an objection: "Hey, author -- something (physical objects) may lack a feature (being a theoretical construct) even if it is composed purely of things (energy and matter) that have that feature (being theoretical constructs)." This speaks to the Part vs. Whole flaw, since the idea is that a feature / trait / property that applies to the parts that a whole is composed of doesn't necessarily also apply to the whole itself.

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

   66%
3. C

   Opposite Assumption8% picked this

   It presumes, without providing justification, that two things may have different features even if there is no

   This answer would work, as a way of addressing the intermediate conclusion, if it started with "fails to consider / overlooks possibility" rather than with "presumes / takes for granted". The author's reasoning move to the intermediate conclusion was that, "If there's no essential distinction between energy and mass (and if we know that energy is a theoretical construct), then that means mass is also a theoretical construct". That reasoning is presuming that two things have the same feature if there is no essential distinction between them.

   8%
4. D

   Not an Objection15% picked this

   It fails to address adequately the possibility that a feature of some theoretical constructs need not be shared

   When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken or could be used as an objection. This one doesn't get off the ground because the argument never talks about any "feature" that some theoretical constructs have. Energy and mass have the "feature" of being a theoretical construct. This answer would be appropriate for an argument that sounds like, "X and Y are both theoretical constructs. Since X has trait A, then Y must also have trait A."

   15%
5. E

   Too Strong11% picked this

   It presumes, without providing justification, that the fact that a suggestion has been made by a physicist proves

   This argument is certainly accepting the claim that "energy is merely a theoretical construct" and it tells us that many prominent physicists have suggested as much. This answer says something way stronger: "As long as one physicist (prominent or obscure) has suggested something, that proves that it's true." We should also feel unnerved picking this answer because we would just be objecting to the validity of a premise, not to the reasoning move that got the author to the conclusion.

   11%