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

One of those you never care about what the other options say.
click (A), move on.

can someone please explain it more explicitly? I just don't understand what is A talking about.

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.

so why in time there were evidence and at a later time there's no evidence to support astrology as a fact? what part of the stimuli is vulnerable, premise or conclusion?

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

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

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!

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

Posted from my mobile device

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!

The logic works this way:
Y--->X, Y=a genuine belief in astrology is proof; X=proof of a credulous and unscientific mind
Since we have Y---NOT X, (in the past, people of indisputable intellectual and scientific brilliance accepted astrology as a fact), then not Y.
But we are talking about "in the past", we can NOT get to the conclusion "not Y". So the correct answer is A.

KarishmaB It took me almost 7 minutes to select A with confidence. Is my reasoning to select A correct?
I couldn't find the suitable weakener so I thought let's find out the assumption instead. Maybe the weakner is exploiting the assumption of the argument.
Assumption is : The case in which negation of conclusion will happen given the premise?
Negation of the Conclusion: There is a scientific basis for rejecting astrology.
Premise: 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.

When I was looking for the assumption I felt like option A bridges the gap between premise and negation of the conclusion.

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".

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!