souvik101990 wrote:
Researchers claim that analogical thinking causes scientific discoveries. They used the works of famous scientists in an attempt to prove that analogy brings about creativity and thereby changes in knowledge. They continued to argue that distant analogies those scientists used could develop a new framework in a certain domain or even form a new domain - the more distant the analogies, the more creative the outcomes.
Which of the following statements, if true, makes the first claim made by the researchers vulnerable to criticism?
A. Creativity is a particular sort of response that brings together apparently irrelevant or remote ideas, leading to scientific discoveries.
B. Highly creative people sometimes use analogy methods to solve problems.
C. Analogical interpretations play a key role in arriving at many scientific empirical formulae.
D. Analogy items are frequently used in IQ tests to measure analytical ability of a person.
E. Analytical ability is a more important factor in scientific discoveries than creativity.
Conclusion:- Analogical thinking causes scientific discoveries.
Premise:- 1. works of famous scientists
2. Analogy causes creativity, and creativity causes changes in knowledge.
3. more distant analogies, the more creative the outcomes.
Assumption:- changes is knowledge is same as or causes scientific discoveries.
Option A:- This option is strengthening the arguments. Its not attacking the underlying assumption. Its merely coexisting with the assumption. See premise point no. 2.
Option B:- Classic weakener. correct answer. Argument says X causes Y. But this options says that Y causes X.
Analogical thinking induces creativity or analogical thinking make people creative (According to the argument). But the option says, No. Its other way round. Creative peoples uses analogical thinking to make discoveries.
Option C:- U may think of this option as strengthener or out of scope. Either way its a wrong answer. If we assume scientific empirical formulae are critical for scientific discoveries, then Its a strengthener. If not, its out of scope.
Option D:- Easiest option to eliminate. OUT OF SCOPE. How come IQ is related to scientific discoveries. Not mentioned in the argument.
Option E:- A contender for option B. Important factors and causality are two different things. Analytical ability may be a more important factor than creativity. But this option fails to answer whether it causes creativity or scientific discoveries. It may cause or may not. Hence, not a correct option.
Please excuse for any typo-error.
Thanks.