Re: Television allows us to transmit images of ourselves that propagate in
[#permalink]
06 May 2024, 07:43
Television allows us to transmit images of ourselves that propagate into space. The earliest of these transmissions have by now reached all of our neighboring star systems. None of these transmissions, so far as we know, has been recognized; we have yet to receive any messages of extraterrestrial origin. We must conclude that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in any of our neighboring star systems.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in any of our neighboring star systems
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since information that we exist has reached neighboring star systems and we haven't received any messages in response, there must not be any intelligence in our neighboring star systems.
The reasoning in the argument is questionable because the argument
This question is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will describe a way in which the argument is questionable, i.e., flawed.
(A) fails to provide an adequate definition of the word "messages"
It's true that the argument does not provide any definition of the word "messages."
At the same time, since it's fairly clear that the point of the argument is that no communication has been received from neighboring star systems, the fact that the form of communication meant by "messages" has not been defined by the argument is not a flaw in the argument.
In other words, the point of the argument is that no messages of any form have been received. So, what exact form the messages could be in doesn't matter.
Eliminate.
(B) infers that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in neighboring star systems from the lack of proof that there is
This choice is interesting.
The argument goes from the fact that no responses have been received from neighboring star systems to the claim "We must conclude that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence in any of our neighboring star systems."
Going from the fact that there have been no responses to the conclusion that "We must conclude" that there is no intelligence is making somewhat of a leap. After all, the fact that there haven't been any responses doesn't mean that there "must" not be any intelligence there. After all, there could be intelligence that has not bothered to respond.
So, since the fact that the argument makes that leap is a weakness in the argument, this choice captures a way in which the argument is questionable, or flawed.
Keep.
(C) assigns too little importance to the possibility that there is extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our neighboring star systems
It's true that the argument doesn't consider the possibility that there is extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our neighboring star systems.
However, it's not the case that the argunent "assigns too little importance" to that possibility. After all, the argument is about our neighboring star systems only. So, in the context of the argument, that possibility is irrelevant. So, the argument works without assigning any importance to that possibility.
Eliminate.
(D) neglects to mention that some governments have sent meticulously prepared messages and recordings on spacecraft
It's true that the argument does not mention that some governments have sent meticulously prepared messages and recordings on spacecraft.
At the same time, failure to mention that information is not a flaw in the argument, for two reasons.
One reason is that, regardless of whether governments have sent such messages and recordings, it remains the case that information has been sent out, and no response has been received. In other words, the fact that messages not mentioned in the argument have been sent doesn't materially change what we know.
The second is that messages sent by spacecraft would not yet have reached neighboring star systems. So, the fact that such messages have been sent is irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about information that has reached neighboring star systems.
Eliminate.
(E) overlooks the immense probability that most star systems are uninhabited
Even if it is probable that most star systems are uninhabited, that information goes along with the conclusion that there is no intelligence in neighoring star systems.
So, the argument does not have to address that probability to work since it works regardless of whether that probability exists.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B