Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jul 0608:00 AM PDT
-05:00 PM PDT
Compete to win some amazing Prizes such as Admissions Consulting Packages, Courses, and more. This is your Best Opportunity to improve your GMAT Score! Register to Participate
Jul 1010:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jul 14
07:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
In this live AMA, Ruthvik shares how he scored a 745 on the GMAT and answers questions from students directly. From the mindset that kept him consistent to the way he approached mocks and managed test-day nerves.. 
Jul 1410:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
Get the score you deserve! Enroll for 6 months of access to over 400 hours of GMAT video lessons AND 715+ Score Guarantee
Jul 2806:00 PM EDT
-08:00 PM EDT
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tue/Thurs July 28 2026 - Oct. 1 2026, 6:00pm-8:00pm EST
29 Jun 2026, 13:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
42% (02:13) correct
58%
(02:39)
wrong
based on 90
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A prominent epistemologist argued: "We can only rationally justify our reliance on induction—the practice of predicting future outcomes based on past regularities—if we possess a higher-order principle certifying that nature is fundamentally uniform. However, any attempt to establish this higher-order principle of uniformity must itself rely either on past observations of nature’s consistency, or on a conceptual framework whose validity is accepted precisely because it has consistently yielded successful predictions in the past. Therefore, any philosophical defense of induction is inherently circular, meaning that our fundamental belief in the rationality of science is entirely groundless."
The epistemologist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
(A) infer, from the premise that a specific method of justification is circular, that the belief the method attempts to justify must therefore be false.
(B) fails to recognize that an argument can be structurally valid and rationally compelling even if its foundational premises cannot themselves be independently verified.
(C) implicitly relies on an inductive inference to support the claim that past attempts to justify the uniformity of nature have consistently required circular reasoning.
(D) presupposes that a belief lacks rational grounding unless it can be justified by a principle external to the cognitive framework within which that belief operates.
(E) conflates the psychological certainty with which a belief is held with the objective, logical validity of the evidence used to support that belief.
The epistemologist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
(A) infer, from the premise that a specific method of justification is circular, that the belief the method attempts to justify must therefore be false.
(B) fails to recognize that an argument can be structurally valid and rationally compelling even if its foundational premises cannot themselves be independently verified.
(C) implicitly relies on an inductive inference to support the claim that past attempts to justify the uniformity of nature have consistently required circular reasoning.
(D) presupposes that a belief lacks rational grounding unless it can be justified by a principle external to the cognitive framework within which that belief operates.
(E) conflates the psychological certainty with which a belief is held with the objective, logical validity of the evidence used to support that belief.
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 14 Jul 2026
Posts: 277
Given Kudos: 192
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
Products:
29 Jun 2026, 20:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premises:
- Induction is rational only if the principle "nature is uniform" can be justified.
- Any justification of that principle ends up relying on induction itself.
- So, any defense of induction is circular.
- Therefore, our belief in the rationality of science is completely groundless.
- The argument assumes that a belief is rational only if it has a justification outside its own framework (i.e., a non-circular, external justification).
- The key leap is: "Circular justification" → "No rational justification at all."
- Ask: Does rationality always require an external justification? If not, the conclusion falls apart.
- A: Wrong—concludes "false," but the argument concludes "groundless."
- B: Talks about logical validity, not the need for external justification.
- C: Minor issue; not the main flaw.
- ✅ D: Correct. It attacks the assumption that only an external justification can provide rational grounding.
- E: Irrelevant; the argument never discusses psychological certainty.
30 Jun 2026, 01:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
A prominent epistemologist argued: "We can only rationally justify our reliance on induction—the practice of predicting future outcomes based on past regularities—if we possess a higher-order principle certifying that nature is fundamentally uniform. However, any attempt to establish this higher-order principle of uniformity must itself rely either on past observations of nature’s consistency, or on a conceptual framework whose validity is accepted precisely because it has consistently yielded successful predictions in the past. Therefore, any philosophical defense of induction is inherently circular, meaning that our fundamental belief in the rationality of science is entirely groundless."
The epistemologist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
The argument says induction can be rational only if it is justified by a higher-order principle of nature’s uniformity. Then it says that any defense of that principle would be circular. From this, it concludes that science is entirely groundless. The flaw is that the argument assumes only a non-circular, external foundation can count as rational grounding.
(A) infer, from the premise that a specific method of justification is circular, that the belief the method attempts to justify must therefore be false.
This is not quite right. The argument concludes that the belief is groundless, not that it is false.
(B) fails to recognize that an argument can be structurally valid and rationally compelling even if its foundational premises cannot themselves be independently verified.
This is close, but too broad. The issue is not just structural validity; the issue is the argument’s demand for an external foundation for induction.
(C) implicitly relies on an inductive inference to support the claim that past attempts to justify the uniformity of nature have consistently required circular reasoning.
This is tempting, but not the main flaw. The epistemologist is not necessarily generalizing from past cases; the claim could be a conceptual claim about any possible defense of induction.
(D) presupposes that a belief lacks rational grounding unless it can be justified by a principle external to the cognitive framework within which that belief operates.
This is correct. The argument assumes that if induction cannot be justified from outside the inductive/scientific framework, then it has no rational grounding at all. That assumption is exactly what needs defending.
(E) conflates the psychological certainty with which a belief is held with the objective, logical validity of the evidence used to support that belief.
This is not the issue. The argument is about justification, not about confusing confidence with evidence.
Answer: (D)
The epistemologist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
The argument says induction can be rational only if it is justified by a higher-order principle of nature’s uniformity. Then it says that any defense of that principle would be circular. From this, it concludes that science is entirely groundless. The flaw is that the argument assumes only a non-circular, external foundation can count as rational grounding.
(A) infer, from the premise that a specific method of justification is circular, that the belief the method attempts to justify must therefore be false.
This is not quite right. The argument concludes that the belief is groundless, not that it is false.
(B) fails to recognize that an argument can be structurally valid and rationally compelling even if its foundational premises cannot themselves be independently verified.
This is close, but too broad. The issue is not just structural validity; the issue is the argument’s demand for an external foundation for induction.
(C) implicitly relies on an inductive inference to support the claim that past attempts to justify the uniformity of nature have consistently required circular reasoning.
This is tempting, but not the main flaw. The epistemologist is not necessarily generalizing from past cases; the claim could be a conceptual claim about any possible defense of induction.
(D) presupposes that a belief lacks rational grounding unless it can be justified by a principle external to the cognitive framework within which that belief operates.
This is correct. The argument assumes that if induction cannot be justified from outside the inductive/scientific framework, then it has no rational grounding at all. That assumption is exactly what needs defending.
(E) conflates the psychological certainty with which a belief is held with the objective, logical validity of the evidence used to support that belief.
This is not the issue. The argument is about justification, not about confusing confidence with evidence.
Answer: (D)
