The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise, because we are not sure how different from use something might be and still count as "intelligent life" Yet we cannot just decide to define "intelligent life" in some more precise way since it is likely that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
The argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to which one of the following claims?(A) The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is one that
will never correctly be answered. - WRONG. being never correctly answered is equivalent to imprecise question. So, either this in line to argument or argument simply does not question it.
(B) Whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe,
our understanding of intelligent life is limited. - WRONG. Changing definitions does imply that our understanding is limited. So, not questioning the claim.
(C) The question about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe
must be made more precise if we hope to answer it correctly. - CORRECT. Undefined possibilities and precise does not go hand in hand. Opposite to each other.
(D) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is
so imprecise as to be meaningless. - WRONG. Whether seeking IL is meaningless or not it is not the scope that argument covers. It does try to seek such answer about IL's presence in universe not that seeking is meaningless or not.
(E) The question whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one
we should not spend our time trying to answer. - WRONG. It is not about whether to spend time on it or not. The passage does not question on this. It looks irrelevant or out of scope as far as argument is concerned and that's perfect for us.
Answer C.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA