Most of Western music since the Renaissance has been based on a seven-

The fact that something is possible is not evidence that it is true. For example, if I said, “I was able to go to the beach yesterday,” that doesn't necessarily mean that I actually did go to the beach yesterday.

Likewise, the fact that the flute could have had three additional holes is not evidence that it does have three additional holes.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi INSEADIESE,

Your reasoning is correct. There is clearly no support for the first statement, but yes, if some support were there, we could say that the first statement is based on some other statement in the argument.
_________________

Thank you Ajitesharun

Best regards,

Posted from my mobile device

When I first answered this question, the official explanation drove me up a wall. In was convinced that we’ve seen worse supporting evidence in Assumption questions. However, what makes this question so difficult is that if one were to classify it, one could say that the argument and question is a cleverly disguised mixture of “find the flaw in reasoning” and “bolded” type.

In inductive reasoning, one of the many logical fallacies is nicknamed “begging the question.” Essentially, the author’s reasoning is flawed in these types of arguments because the author assumes what she sets out to prove. Something like: “GMAC is wrong because I think they are wrong.”

The reason why the evidence of the four holes on the flute and the flute’s length do not support the intermediate conclusion is the following:

In order to use these two facts as supporting evidence that the “flute must surely have had more holes,” what must the author be assuming?

The author notices that the present holes are perfectly spaced for playing some of the notes of this scale.

He then comes up with the intermediate opinion that the “flute must have had more holes.”

In order to come up with this opinion, the author MUST necessarily be assuming that the reason why the flute’s holes are spaced the way they are is because the flute was once used to play the diatonic scale. If the flute was not used for that scale, then what would be the importance of the spacing?

However, what is the author setting out to prove in his ultimate conclusion?

“The Neanderthals who made the flute probably used a diatonic scale.”

So, in coming up with the intermediate opinion that the flute must have had more holes, the author is assuming EXACTLY what he is setting out to prove: that the flute was used to play the diatonic scale and therefore the makers used a diatonic scale.

This is a classic “begging the question” type fallacy. Because the author assumes what he sets out to prove in making the intermediate opinion, there exists no real evidence supporting the intermediate opinion that the flute must have had more holes.

Therefore, B is the correct answer.



Posted from my mobile device