Those influenced by modern Western science take it for granted that a

Question

Those influenced by modern Western science take it for granted that a genuine belief in astrology is proof of a credulous and unscientific mind. Yet, in the past, people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance accepted astrology as a fact. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) A belief can be consistent with the available evidence and accepted scientific theories at one time but not with the accepted evidence and theories of a later time.

(B) Since it is controversial whether astrology has a scientific basis, any argument that attempts to prove that it has will be specious.

(C) Although the conclusion is intended to hold in all cultures, the evidence advanced in its support is drawn only from those cultures strongly influenced by modern Western science.

(D) The implicit assumption that all practitioners of Western science believe in astrology is false.

(E) The fact that there might be legitimate nonscientific reasons for rejecting astrology has been overlooked.

leo · Answer

A is the answer. It refers to timeline since "in the past, people of indisputable intellectual "

B Out of scope

C. Evidence never mentions western culture

D.Strong statement and contrary to argument

E.Out of scope.

keats · Answer

Those influenced by modern Western science take it for granted that a genuine belief in astrology is proof of a credulous and unscientific mind. Yet, in the past, people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance accepted astrology as a fact. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) A belief can be consistent with the available evidence and accepted scientific theories at one time but not with the accepted evidence and theories of a later time.

Option A captures the flaw nicely. It might be possible that in the past, indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance accepted *astrology as a fact* because there were reasonable evidence and scientific theories to prove it at the point in time. However, "astrology as a fact* might not be accepted with the theories available at a later time.

mykrasovski · Answer

GMATNinja  can you please help decode this problem? It does not feel like a sub-600 one....

bawatwr · Answer

Hi,

Can anyone tell whats wrong with B here.Though A is clearly winner buy cant find any point against B too.

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja · Answer

The key to this one lies in the second sentence: "Yet,  in the past , people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance accepted astrology as a fact." The author uses evidence about the  past  ("people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance  accepted  astrology as a fact") to draw a conclusion in the present ("there  is  no scientific basis for rejecting astrology").

The first sentence tells us that, according to a person influenced by modern Western science, if you believe in astrology, then you have an unscientific mind. This suggests that, currently, astrology goes against modern Western science. However, in the past, there may have been limited scientific evidence or even no scientific evidence at odds with astrology.

Thus, in the past, people of "indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance" may have had no scientific reasons for rejecting astrology. However, if those same people were alive today, they might reject astrology based on current (modern) Western science.

(B) essentially says, "Because people argue about whether astrology has a scientific basis, an argument attempting to prove that astrology DOES have a scientific basis will be specious (having a false look of truth or genuineness)."

First of all, the author is not trying to PROVE that astrology has a scientific basis. Rather, the author concludes that there is no scientific basis for  rejecting  astrology. Because (B) makes a claim about a different argument than the one in the passage, we cannot say that it accurately identifies a vulnerability about the argument in question.

In addition, (B) frankly doesn't make much sense -- if there is controversy about an issue, does that mean that attempts to prove one particular side of that issue MUST be specious? What if strong new evidence in support of the argument emerges? What if the argument is well reasoned and logically sound?

We are looking for why the argument, as given, is vulnerable to criticism. (B) does not accomplish this -- instead, it makes an unsupported claim about a different argument. For these reasons, (B) is out.

I hope that helps!

Curious750 · Answer

GMATNinja , Can you explain why Option E is not correct ?

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja · Answer

The author's conclusion is that "there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology." THIS conclusion (or the author's evidence in support of this conclusion) is what we are attempting to poke holes in as we answer the question.

Keep that in mind and look again at (E):
 
(E) tells us that there may be other,  nonscientific  reasons for rejecting astrology. This does not poke holes in the author's argument at all -- it is possible that the author's reasoning and conclusion are sound even if OTHER reasons for rejecting astrology exist.

As an example, consider this argument: "Dogs are better than cats because dogs love unconditionally."

This argument  overlooks  the fact that dogs are also better than cats because dogs are the more adorable animal. But is the original argument  vulnerable to criticism  because it overlooks this unrelated fact? Not at all -- they are just two separate arguments.

Because (E) doesn't identify a reason that the author's argument is vulnerable to criticism, it is not the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

himanshi1172 · Answer

Taking another direction, if option C stated: C) Although the conclusion is intended to hold in all cultures, the evidence advanced in its support is drawn  only  from those cultures  strongly influenced by the past  - would it have been a valid weakener too?

I am trying to understand if the argument stating "undisputed intelligence and scientific brilliance" of scientists who accepted astrology - acts as a type of "evidence".

GMATNinja · Answer

I'm not quite sure if I'm interpreting your question correctly, but it sounds like you're trying to morph choice (C) to look more like (A).

The problem is that the author is using evidence about science and scientists  from the past  to draw a conclusion about the  current  scientific basis (science and scientists of the present). That doesn't work if the scientific theories and evidence from the past are inconsistent with the present theories and evidence.

That's why (A) is correct, as explained in  this post .

I hope that helps a bit!

LessGoRahul · Answer

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds stated in  (A) .
Breakdown of the Flaw
 
  Premise:  In the past, brilliant scientific minds accepted astrology as fact. 
  Conclusion:  Therefore, there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology today.  
The argument assumes that because scientific authorities in the past did not reject astrology, modern science has no basis to do so. This overlooks the progressive nature of science: theories and evidence evolve over time. What seemed scientifically reasonable based on the knowledge and evidence available centuries ago can be firmly refuted by modern evidence and scientific frameworks.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
 
  (B)  commits a circular reasoning fallacy itself and assumes the outcome rather than identifying the logical gap in the author's reasoning. 
  (C)  mischaracterizes the scope; the argument does not attempt to draw universal cultural claims, nor is cultural limitation the core flaw of the scientific reasoning. 
  (D)  misstates the author's premise; the argument never assumes that modern Western scientists believe in astrology (in fact, the first sentence states they dismiss it). 
  (E)  focuses on nonscientific reasons, whereas the author's conclusion is specifically about whether there is a  scientific basis  for rejecting astrology.

Those influenced by modern Western science take it for granted that a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Those influenced by modern Western science take it for granted that a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards