Despite the best efforts of astronomers

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Objection3% picked this

   fails to consider that there might be extraterrestrial forms of intelligence that are

   Whether intelligent extraterrestrials might be non-living is exotic but tangential. Even granting all extraterrestrial intelligence is living, the argument's flaw remains: it concludes there is no extraterrestrial intelligence solely because astronomers have not found any. The flaw is structural, about how absence of evidence is treated — not about the metaphysics of life.

   3%
2. B

   Correct95% picked this

   confuses an absence of evidence for a hypothesis with the existence of evidence

   Why this is right

   This identifies the flaw exactly. The astronomers have not proved intelligent extraterrestrial life exists — that is an absence of evidence for the hypothesis. The argument treats that absence as if it were evidence against the hypothesis, concluding no such life exists. But not having found something does not show it does not exist; the search may be incomplete, the targets may be far away, the methods may be insufficient. Confusing "no evidence for" with "evidence against" is exactly this argument's mistake.

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

   95%
3. C

   Bad Description1% picked this

   interprets a disagreement over a scientific theory as a disproof of

   The argument does not involve a disagreement over a scientific theory. There is no theory being debated and no clash of expert views in the stimulus — just astronomers having not found something. So this misdescribes the structure of the argument.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Description1% picked this

   makes an inference that relies on the vagueness of the

   The argument does not exploit any vagueness in the term "life." Whatever definition of "life" we use, the structural flaw — treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence — remains. Vagueness is not what is going wrong here.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Description0% picked this

   relies on a weak analogy rather than on evidence to draw

   There is no analogy in the argument. The author does not compare extraterrestrial life to anything else. The reasoning is direct: astronomers haven't found extraterrestrial life, so there isn't any. This describes a flaw the argument does not commit.

   0%