#20 - Paula: Earthlike planets seem to be the rule rather

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mstubblefield08]

Hi!

I chose C for this one. I think I'm confused because the second statement (Ashley) doesn't mention development of radio communication. Would someone be able to help me understand? Thanks in advance!

Cheers,
Molly

[KelseyWoods]

Hi mstubblefeld08!

Answer choice (C) is tempting! But Paula never mentions whether or not she thinks that our technology is influenced by our cognitive makeup. So since we don't know what Paula would say about answer choice (C), that cannot be the point at issue between them.

With answer choice (A), however, we know what both speakers would say. Paula clearly agrees that "it is probable that there are intelligent alien beings who have developed radio communication" because she thinks that using radio telescopes would be a way to successfully contact intelligent alien beings. We also know what Ashley thinks because she says "Using radio telescopes to search for intelligent life is a waste of time and money." Ashley thinks that using radio to search for intelligent life is a waste of time and money because she doesn't think it's probable that intelligent alien beings have developed the same technologies (including radio communication) as humans.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[owen95]

Hi Kelsey!

I was between C and A on this one, but I went with C and would like a little more clarification...

Here's why C seemed better to me:
In response to "Paula never mentions whether or not she thinks that our technology is influenced by our cognitive makeup,"... I interpreted her statement that "alien scientists would have basically the same understanding of mathematics and physics that humans have" to mean that, basically, things like science and math are not susceptible to relative things like culture or cognitive make-up. To Paula, knowledge of this sort is a universal constant that everyone has access to, unlike Ashley who thinks it's dependent on environment, physiology and cognitive make-up. In other words, I took this to mean that Paula was ruling out the possibility that technology/science is dependent on or influenced by cognitive make-up.
Am I just taking something that might be an underlying assumption for Paula and treating it like her claim? I'm still not sure why this is wrong... Do you think if C was slightly re-worded in some way, it could've been right? Maybe like "Alien technology would be similar to human technology"?

And here's why A didn't seem as strong to me:
In Ashley's argument, there is no indicator connecting her last sentence to her first two sentences. No "thus," no "therefore," no "because." So I didnt feel comfortable reading it as [premise (analogy about politics) -> premise(claim about relativity of knowledge/technology) -> conclusion]. Rather, it seemed like the last sentence (waste of time and money) could've been a separate point. Maybe, for instance, Ashley just doesn't care about finding alien life in the first place, whether it's with radios or some other technology. Maybe she thinks it's a waste of time regardless.
Further, I crossed off A because Ashley never says that it is not "probable" that aliens would have radio technology; she is merely responding to Paula's claim that it's "inevitable." Again, maybe Ashley thinks it's very probable (given how big the universe is) that some aliens have radio technology, but she thinks there are still better ways of going about trying to contact them that waste less time and money.

Are there assumptions that I should be making that I'm not; or assumptions that I am making but shouldn't be???

Thanks so much!!!!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Owen!

Thanks for writing out your thinking--really helps us better target our explanations to you!

Regarding answer choice (C), you're making too big of an assumption here. We have to rely on what Paula said. All Paula said was that "Alien scientists would have basically the same understanding of mathematics and physics that humans have." But we don't know exactly why Paula thinks this. Maybe it's because she thinks there's some universal constant that transcends environment, physiology, and cognitive makeup. But maybe it's because she assumes that aliens would have the same cognitive makeup as humans. We can't say for sure that Paula would disagree that our technology is influenced by our cognitive makeup. Even if she thinks that universal constants have a more overarching impact, she might still agree that cognitive makeup has some effect as well. And even if she doesn't think radio technologies are influenced by cognitive makeup, she might think that other technologies are. The point is, it would take a lot more for us to be able to say for sure that Paula definitely disagrees with the statement "our technology is influenced by our cognitive makeup" based on her statements in the stimulus.

As for answer choice (A), first we have to remember that we're not always going to have premise or conclusion indicators in arguments. That's why ultimately we have to rely on the relationship between statements. Also, when we have two speakers, we have to read the second speaker within the context of the first speaker. Ashley is responding to Paula, so we have to pay attention to what Ashley is responding to. Paula has multiple conclusion indicators ("so" and "thus." But again we have to rely on the relationships between her statements and her ultimate conclusion ends up being the second sentence: "we can expect our radio telescopes to detect signs of such beings." How do I know this? Because the other statements give me reasons why we can expect radio telescopes to detect signs of intelligent beings: 1.) there are probably intelligent beings on other planets and 2.) they would inevitably develop technologies like radio communication. In responding to this, Ashley's first sentence shows that she disagrees with the reasoning that Paula used to get to that second sub-conclusion, that aliens would inevitably develop radio communication. The second sentence shows that she thinks it would be unlikely that aliens would have the same technologies because she thinks "science, math, and technology are unique outgrowths of our physiology, cognitive makeup, and environment." And the third sentence brings us to the conclusion that is supported by these first two sentences: that using radio communication to search for intelligent beings is a waste of time and money. Thus, we can say that Ashley would disagree that "it is probable that there are intelligent alien beings who have developed radio communication."

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[mkarimi73]

Why is (A) a better answer than (D)? Ashley seems to imply in her last sentence that it is not worthwhile looking for intelligent life, thus it sounds like she does not think there is likely intelligent life on other planets. My pre-phrase was two-fold, and they matched (A) and (D) nicely. I was also appreciative of the safe language of (D) too.

However, is (A) a better answer choice because it is more provable? Is it because this is more directly relevant to the point at issue? Please explain, so that I don't make this mistake again.

One last question: Which phrase is the subsidiary conclusion of Paula's argument, and which one is the main conclusion? I ask this question, so that I can get better at understanding argument structure. Thanks in advance.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

I'm going to answer your last question first, mkarimi73, because structure tells us so much about the argument. Here, Paula's main conclusion is that we can expect our radio telescopes to detect alien signs on other planets because it does not support any other part of the argument. The fact that they would develop radio technology works as a subsidiary conclusion because it supports the main conclusion, but is also supported by other statements in the argument.

Careful with Ashley's argument though. She doesn't say that there isn't likely to be intelligent life. She doesn't have a stated view on the subject. However, she does say that we aren't likely to find intelligent life using radio telescopes. Answer choice (D) is wrong because we just don't know Ashley's view on the existence/nonexistence of intelligent alien life.

Answer choice (A) is something that we know both speakers' views on, and they disagree. Paula fairly clearly states that she believes that intelligent beings are out there who would have developed radio telescopes. Ashley disagrees, stating that there's no reason to think that they would develop the same technology we have developed.

As you said, it's a provability issue---we can see where both speakers stand on answer choice (A), where we just don't have that certainty with answer choice (D). Often that's where you'll find the trickiest wrong answers for point at issue questions. They make the answer choices look really close to something that you know, but they are actually topics that you don't know the view of one or both speakers.

Hope that helps!