Bunuel wrote:
Scientist: My peers have said that my theory regarding molecular cohesion in glass is based on sheer conjecture and has no experimental basis. This is simply not true. I’ve based my theory on several findings that have been published recently by reputable research organizations. Even though I have not reviewed every detail of their experiments, I am confident in their work. Besides, you may recall that I was asked to develop theories on molecular cohesion in wood fibers five years ago and I used findings from the same labs then as well.
The scientist’s argument is LEAST vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
(A) It bases a conclusion about the scientific findings of the research organizations on uncertain recollections.
(B) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are unaffected by bias or human error.
(C) It assumes that the experiments done by the research organizations are the only work necessary to develop a scientific theory.
(D) It hastily concludes that the experiments done by the research organizations are accurate, without having studied them in detail.
(E) It assumes that having in the past used the experiments done by the research organizations as a basis to develop a scientific theory justifies using them to develop the current theory.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Answer: A
STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task.This is a Strengthen question. It asks you to find the answer that weakens the argument least, or in other words, most strengthens the argument.
STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind.The scientist argues that his peers’ statements that his theories are “based on sheer conjecture and have no experimental basis” are wrong because his theories are based on recent, reputable data. Although the scientist admits that he hasn’t read “every detail” of the information, he trusts the sources.
STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for.The correct answer is a criticism that has little or no effect on discrediting the argument. As you review your answer choices, a process of elimination works best in this situation.
STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice.Answer A describes the basis of the conclusion as “uncertain recollections” even though the recollection does not seem uncertain at all. He refers to a specific study and use of the same research organizations. There is nothing uncertain about those recollections. Answer A seems like a good option. Considering answer B, if the experiments are affected by human error, then such a criticism would definitely weaken the scientist’s argument that the research supported the theory. Since the scientist argues that the experiments done by the research organizations are all that are necessary to support his theory, answer C would seriously weaken the argument by saying more support is necessary. Answer D calls into question the quality of the research, and since the scientist uses these studies as the sole support for the theory, this criticism most definitely weakens the scientist’s argument. Finally, if the logical pattern of using the lab’s results to support a theory does not work for the current theory, then the scientist’s argument is again weakened. Since answers B, C, D, and E all render the scientist’s argument vulnerable to further scrutiny, they can be eliminated, which means answer A is the correct choice.
close
06 Sep 2021, 08:00
59%
(02:17)
wrong 
