Bunuel wrote:
Montgomery, a biologist who is also well read in archaeology, has recently written a book on the origin and purpose of ancient monumental architecture. This book has received much positive attention in the popular press but has been severely criticized by many professional archaeologists for being too extreme. Montgomery’s views do not deserve a negative appraisal, however, since those views are no more extreme than the views of some professional archaeologists.
The argument is most vulnerable to which one of following criticisms?
Stance: Montgomery's views should not be criticized because other professional archaeologists have views that are as extreme as or more extreme than Montgomery's.
Missing info: We do not have information to tell us if the other archaeologist's views that are as extreme as or more extreme than Montgomery's have been criticized. If they have been critized, only then can Montgomery's views also be criticized.
If Extremity of Montgomery's views < Extremity of some other professional archaeologists views , then criticism of Montgomery's views < Criticism of those other professional archaeologists views.Bunuel wrote:
(A) It fails to establish that professional archaeologists’ views that are at least as extreme as Montgomery’s views do not deserve negative appraisal for that reason.
This is the Correct Answer. This tells us exactly what is missing in the argument. This tells us that we need to first establish if the other archaeologists' views that are at least as extreme as Montgomery’s views deserve/do not deserve criticism. If other archaeologists' views deserve criticism, then Montgomery;s views that are as extreme as other archaeologist's views also deserve criticism. If other archaeologists' views DO NOT deserve criticism, then Montgomery's views also do not deserve criticism because his views are less extreme than that of other archaelogists
Bunuel wrote:
(B) It assumes without warrant that many professional archaeologists consider biologists unqualified to discuss ancient architecture.
There is no need for us to establish whether professional archaeologists consider biologists unqualified to discuss ancient architecture. Even if they do so, it does not provide a basis for criticism based on extremism of views.
Bunuel wrote:
(C) It overlooks the possibility that many professional archaeologists are unfamiliar with Montgomery’s views.
Even if many professional archaeologists are unfamiliar with Montgomery’s views, there may still be some professional archaeologists who are familiar with Montgomery’s views and may criticize it. This option does not draw a comparison of criticism faced by other archaeologists to that faced by Montgomery because of extremism of views.
Bunuel wrote:
(D) It provides no independent evidence to show that the majority of professional archaeologists do not support Montgomery’s views.
"Do not support" his views is not equal to criticize his views.
Even if majority of professional archaeologists do not support Montgomery’s views, it does not does not mean that they SHOULD criticize his views. This option too does not draw a comparison of criticism faced by other archaeologists to that faced by Montgomery because of extremism of views.
Bunuel wrote:
(E) It attempts to support its position by calling into question the motives of anyone who supports an opposing position.
Motives of anyone is out of scope of this passage.
This option too does not draw a comparison of criticism faced by other archaeologists to that faced by Montgomery because of extremism of views.