|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 42
Location: Thailand
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
If we believe that the Earth moves, even though we do not [#permalink]
 08 Jun 2004, 03:31
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
If we believe that the Earth moves, even though we do not feel it move, and that the Sun does not move around the Earth, even though we see that it does, we might as well completely give up trusting our five senses.
The arguement above is vulnerable to which if the following objections?
A Why should sight be any less trustworthy than the other senses, when it appears to be the most accurate?
B How can we say that an object we know to be large, such as the sun, revolves around a much smaller object, such as the Earth?
C What authority do the sense perceptions of a single person have when contrasted with the object system of scientific knowledge?
D Why should we refuse to say that the Earth move, When we see the Sun rise and set every day?
E How do we know that the Earth move around the Sun, if it is not evidence gained through the senses?
Please explain your answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 417
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Hmmmmmmmm............C??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
I guess E is the answer. The author suggests we give up trusting our senses because the phenomena s/he cites to make her/his point run counter to how we perceive them. To weaken the argument we need to provide evidence that the five senses can be trusted.
Choice E does just that as it states that the senses were used to figure out that the Earth moves around the sun and not vice versa.
Last edited by ob on 08 Jun 2004, 09:36, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
Once again, I agree with E. Nice explanation ob
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: Once again, I agree with E. Nice explanation ob
Thanks, Paul! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
ob gave a lovely explanation. (E) should be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 42
Location: Thailand
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
First of all OA is E
thank OB
your explaination is concise and easy to understand
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
E my FA. ob you nailed it right on the head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Thank you, guys! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
