#26- People ought to take into account a discipline’s

[asteroid]

I guess the conclusion of this argument is the first sentence:"People ought to..."

The correct answer is B.
I don't quite understand that why the "chemistry's current theories and practice" mattes in forming this argument.
Is that because of the conclusion is about "Origins", so they have to be different from the current status?

Is this one considered as a hard question?

Thanks.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. In that one, the author claims that, in determining the value of a scientific discipline, one should consider its past. For example, the author says, chemistry's early results were derived by alchemists.

Since the question asks for the Flaw in the Reasoning , you should certainly prephrase the issue, which is that the author draws conclusions about a current science based on alchemy--a pseudo-science that bears no resemblance to modern-day chemistry. This is the flaw provided in correct answer choice B.

Let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[asteroid]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for the help.

In other words, this argument is flawed because of the missing linkage between the conclusion and premise:
alchemist is the "blemished origin" of chemistry ?

So I guess the " many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemist who dominated the early development of chemical theory" does not necessarily mean that " alchemist is the past of chemistry",right?

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. In that one, the author's whole argument is flawed: An early association with a questionable group of alchemists should not detract from the scientific value of a completely updated and clearly distinguishable science. It's sort of like an an unfair character attack on modern chemistry; just because Chemistry was seen with some questionable characters in the distant past, that doesn't mean that the science's value should necessarily be questioned today.

Let me know whether that makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[ClaudiaK32]

I chose C for this answer and am still unclear as to why B is the correct response. Is B the answer because it shows that chemistry is not being "assessed" in relation to alchemy?

[Charlie Melman]

Hi Claudia,

Answer choice (C) is incorrect because there is no example to contradict the principle that we should be suspicious of a scientific discipline whose origins are fishy. Chemistry's origins are fishy, and we should consider that.

Answer choice (B) is correct because chemistry today is clearly very different from the alchemy of the past. So why should we think that chemistry's discoveries might be made questionable by what alchemists did hundreds of years ago?

Hope this helps!

[EL16]

Hi,

I understand this question and the correct answer, but am just looking to sharpen my knowledge on different types of answer choices that appear. Is answer choice E explaining what would be an uncertain use of terms? And is answer C describing an incorrect use of evidence flaw or something else? I don't believe A, B, or D are specific categories of flaw questions, but please correct me if I am wrong!

Thanks for the help!
Elana

[EL16]

Hi,

Just double checking that my question didn't get skipped over, since I know you guys are usually good with answering! Just looking for some more information about what the incorrect answer choices are identifying/what the stimulus would have looked like if each of them were correct.

Thanks,
Elana

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Elana,

Thanks for the question! You'll probably see some delays in replies right now, since the posting level is way higher than normal

Yes, answer choice (E) is an uncertain use of the term—good job!

Answer choice (C) isn't a formal evidence error, and actually does not describe an error at all, because it's generally okay to use an example to contradict a principle. In the argument the example actually is supposed to support the principle, not contradict it, meaning this answer misses the mark factually. I think you might have been wondering if this fits the "some evidence against is taken to prove a position false" flaw, and I see why you wondering about that connection, but I don't think the wording is quite close enough to put it in that group.

Thanks!

[EL16]

Thank you for your help, Dave!