PT158 · S3 · Q21 Professor: Many scientists hypothesize

The professor does not need to assume that combining both the medium and relativity would fail to explain low visibility. The professor's argument is that relativity alone is sufficient — making the medium unnecessary. This does not require that the two explanations are incompatible or that they could not work together. Two explanations can coexist without conflicting; the professor's point is simply that only one is needed. This answer addresses compatibility between the two theories, but the argument only requires independence, not incompatibility. The assumption needed is narrower: relativity does not depend on the medium, not that the two cannot coexist.

This says the hypothesis is correct only if it is the sole explanation for low visibility. This is far too strong. The professor's argument does not require that the hypothesis is correct only if it is unique — it requires that the evidence cited (low visibility) does not uniquely support the hypothesis because an alternative explanation exists. The professor is making an argument about evidential support, not about the logical conditions for the hypothesis's truth. Even if the medium hypothesis could be correct while coexisting with other explanations, the professor's point would still stand: low visibility does not provide independent reason to believe in the medium. This answer mischaracterizes the logical relationship.

This answer says: a hypothesis is likely to be correct if there is some phenomenon it adequately accounts for. But the professor argues the reverse: a hypothesis is NOT supported just because it can explain something, especially when another theory already explains it. This answer, if anything, supports the SCIENTISTS' position — it suggests that because the medium hypothesis can account for low visibility, it is likely correct. The professor would reject this principle, not assume it. The professor's whole point is that the ability to explain a phenomenon does not constitute reason to believe a hypothesis when an alternative explanation already exists. This answer goes against the professor's reasoning.

Whether most scientists who believe in the medium also accept the general theory of relativity is irrelevant to whether the professor's argument is sound. The professor's argument is about the logical relationship between the two theories, not about what individual scientists believe. Even if no scientists who posit the medium accept relativity, the professor's point stands: relativity explains low visibility, so that evidence does not uniquely support the medium. Conversely, even if all medium proponents accept relativity, the professor's argument still needs the independence of the explanations. This answer addresses sociological facts about scientists' beliefs rather than the logical structure of the argument.