Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily

Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily settled: it is both an art and a science. The scientific components are the complicated mathematics and the astronomical knowledge needed to create an astrological chart. The art is in the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual.

The reasoning in the occultist???s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics
(B) incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components
(C) denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific
(D) incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols

How is B correct?

VeritasKarishma, MartyTargetTestPrep

Please Shed light into this reasoning.

The argument says whether astrology is science or not is settled and then went on to claim that it is both. Does it mean that Astrology is an art is already established and believed. Hence the whole argument is about whether it is science or not and hence we need to weaken this argument whether astrology is science.

Earlier i marked C but when i realised that the argument does not bother about astrology being art . It only bothers about astrology being science. Hence B is the answer.

Let me know.

Thank you

Premises:

The scientific components are the complicated mathematics and the astronomical knowledge needed to create an astrological chart.
The art is in the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual.

Conclusion: Astrology is both an art and a science.

What will weaken it?


(A) presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics

He does not say that any science must involve complicated mathematics. He says that complicated mathematics are a scientific component.

(B) incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components

The occultist says that because astrology has some scientific components, it is a science. This is a flaw in his reasoning.

(C) denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific

He only claims that it involves components of both, not that there are no other components.

(D) incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart

He doesn't infer that astronomical knowledge is scientific based on the given fact. He says that astronomical knowledge is scientific is a fact.

(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols

He doesn't say that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols.

Answer (B)

the argument contains reasoning and the facts, defined by the occultists. The question stem is only concerned with the reasoning so we don't need to review the facts. The reasoning is that since astrology contains scientific components, it's a science. This mistake is the fallacy of composition, just because a thing has components that are [adjective], such thing is [adjective]. B correctly describe this mistake.

(B) Logical Flaw
Read carefully—sometimes the author makes a subtle shift in terms that takes the whole argument off track.

The occultist’s conclusion comes right up front. In case anyone was wondering, it’s been settled: astrology is both an art and a science. The occultist then goes on to explain why: astrology has artistic and scientific components. Might it be possible that something can contain scientific components without being a science (or artistic components without being an art)? This is a possibility that the occultist definitely overlooks. Instead, he makes the logical leap from evidence that astrology has some scientific components to a conclusion that astrology is a science. (B) correctly sums up this unwarranted logical leap.

(A) and (E) broaden the scope far too much. The occultist doesn’t presume that any science must involve complicated mathematics. He just cites complicated math as one of the scientific components of astrology. Similarly, there is no presumption that any art must include the synthesis of multiple factors and symbols; that’s just what makes astrology an art.

(C) The occultist does say that astrology is both an art and a science, but he never rules out the possibility that astrology includes components that aren’t artistic or scientific.

(D) gets the occultist’s reasoning backwards. He
starts from the premise that math and astronomy are scientific in order to conclude that astrology is. He doesn’t conclude that they are scientific based on their use in astrology.