nightblade354 wrote:
Some astrologers claim that personalities are completely determine by horoscopes, but this claim is false. Identical twins born at practically the same time often do have similar personalities. Nevertheless, when birth records were examined to track two individuals - born 40 years ago on the same day and at exactly the same time, one in Toronto and one in New York - their personalities were found to be entirely different.
The blue is our conclusion, and the green is our premise. This is an ASSUMPTION question, so we must negate the answers to disprove the CONCLUSION
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The geographical difference between Toronto and New York did not result in the two individuals having different horoscopes. -- The geographical difference did result in the difference. This disproves the conclusion right off the bat. The premise talks about New York and Toronto, and this counters that claim. And the conclusion is dependent on this premise
B. Astrologers have not subjected their claims to rigorous experimentation. -- Who cares about the testing methods? Way out of scope. Further, this doesn't disprove our conclusion
C. The personality differences between the two individuals cannot be explained by the cultural difference between Toronto and New York. -- Culture differences can explain the difference. This strengthens the conclusion, so it is out.
D. Complete birth records for the past 40 years were kept at both hospitals. -- Who cares about complete records? Completely out of scope, and does not disprove our conclusion
E. Identical twins have identical genetic structures and usually have similar home environments. -- Twins do not have identical structures/similar home environments. This strengthens our conclusion, and thus must be eliminated
Thank you for your answer, nightblade; I appreciate the effort you put in for us. However, I would like to ask for your expertise one more time regarding the following issue with the question.
The narrator of the question (i.e. the person who responds to the astrologers' claims) argues in the context of the claim of the astrologers that differences in personalities are due to differences in birth time. The argument, as a whole and from the view of the stance of the narrator, does not discuss the implications of location. Thus, option A seems completely out of scope, as it talks about an irrelevant aspect (i.e. an aspect considered to not change the argument in any way), considering that time is the only aspect addressed and considering that the statement implies that the narrator only talks about time.
As a matter of fact, none of the answers seem to make sense.
I thank you for your time, nightblade, and hope to gain some clarification
Please note: my query assumes that the word "Horoscope" implies something that is time-based.