- Posts: 6
- Joined: Apr 15, 2017
I read the above posts, and I can sort of see why D is better than A... sort of... the "hypothesis" is the beliefs of all these people... that's very funny calling that a "hypothesis" by the way. And then the event, is after the "If so, " and that's where the argument actually starts. So choosing D over A requires seeing what's after the "If so, " as the "event" in question, and what people believe as the "hypothesis"... if you lump the "If so" and what people believe together, then you might miss it.
BUT WAIT. My answer was B?!? So explain this to me... the author says people believe the galaxy will be colonized by trillions of humans... that's one of the premises, that belief... but then he says "we have no reason to think we are unrepresentative"... well, it's common sense that there aren't trillions of people inn the world... so those two things contradict each other. You can't believe that there will be many more people later and also not think yourself unrepresentative. Moreover, that's kind of the heart of his flawed logic.
I just couldn't rule this answer out when I was doing it. If I really stretched myself, now, looking at this, I could claim that "no reason to think we are unrepresentative" wasn't a conclusion, it was another premise... in other words, had B been "stating a premise that implicitly contradicts one of the premises that the argument accepts", then B would have been right.
But what is doing the implicit contradicting? B isn't "has a conclusion that implicitly contradicts one of the premises"... it's "drawing a conclusion" so one could say that in drawing the conclusion, premises involved in the conclusion that are contradictory could be part of that process of "drawing a conclusion".
So now how can I really rule out B, and in the 60 seconds I have to do this problem.