mykrasovski wrote:
GMATNinja can you please help decode this problem? It does not feel like a sub-600 one....
The key to this one lies in the second sentence: "Yet,
in the past, people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance accepted astrology as a fact." The author uses evidence about the
past ("people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance
accepted astrology as a fact") to draw a conclusion in the present ("there
is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology").
The first sentence tells us that, according to a person influenced by modern Western science, if you believe in astrology, then you have an unscientific mind. This suggests that, currently, astrology goes against modern Western science. However, in the past, there may have been limited scientific evidence or even no scientific evidence at odds with astrology.
Thus, in the past, people of "indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance" may have had no scientific reasons for rejecting astrology. However, if those same people were alive today, they might reject astrology based on current (modern) Western science.
bawatwr wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone tell whats wrong with B here.Though A is clearly winner buy cant find any point against B too.
Posted from my mobile device
Quote:
(B) Since it is controversial whether astrology has a scientific basis, any argument that attempts to prove that it has will be specious.
(B) essentially says, "Because people argue about whether astrology has a scientific basis, an argument attempting to prove that astrology DOES have a scientific basis will be specious (having a false look of truth or genuineness)."
First of all, the author is not trying to PROVE that astrology has a scientific basis. Rather, the author concludes that there is no scientific basis for
rejecting astrology. Because (B) makes a claim about a different argument than the one in the passage, we cannot say that it accurately identifies a vulnerability about the argument in question.
In addition, (B) frankly doesn't make much sense -- if there is controversy about an issue, does that mean that attempts to prove one particular side of that issue MUST be specious? What if strong new evidence in support of the argument emerges? What if the argument is well reasoned and logically sound?
We are looking for why the argument, as given, is vulnerable to criticism. (B) does not accomplish this -- instead, it makes an unsupported claim about a different argument. For these reasons, (B) is out.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC