Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily

Question

Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily settled: it is both an art and a science. The scientific components are the complicated mathematics and the astronomical knowledge needed to create an astrological chart. The art is in the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual.

The reasoning in the occultist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics
(B) incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components
(C) denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific
(D) incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols

MRAJINKYA · Answer

A,E.  without providing justification - If something is mentioned as fact in question justification is not required.
C. Opposite of facts stated in Question
D. Nothing about astrological chart is mentioned in the question.

So, B is the right answer

Subhrajyoti · Answer

Can someone please explain why B is the correct answer.

ruchiism · Answer

Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily settled: it is both an art and a science. The scientific components are the complicated mathematics and the astronomical knowledge needed to create an astrological chart. The art is in the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual.

The reasoning in the occultist???s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics
(B) incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components
(C) denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific
(D) incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols

How is B correct?

brains · Answer

VeritasKarishma ,  MartyTargetTestPrep

Please Shed light into this reasoning.

The argument says whether astrology is science or not is settled and then went on to claim that it is both. Does it mean that  Astrology is an art is already established and believed.  Hence the whole argument is about whether it is science or not and hence we need to weaken this argument whether astrology is science.

Earlier i marked C but when i realised that the argument does not bother about astrology being art . It only bothers about astrology being science. Hence B is the answer.

Let me know.

Thank you

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:

The scientific components are the complicated mathematics and the astronomical knowledge needed to create an astrological chart. 
The art is in the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual.

Conclusion: Astrology is both an art and a science.

What will weaken it?

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics

He does not say that any science must involve complicated mathematics. He says that complicated mathematics are a scientific component.

(B) incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components

The occultist says that because astrology has some scientific components, it is a science. This is a flaw in his reasoning.

(C) denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific

He only claims that it involves components of both, not that there are no other components.

(D) incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart

He doesn't infer that astronomical knowledge is scientific based on the given fact. He says that astronomical knowledge is scientific is a fact.

(E) presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols

He doesn't say that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols.

Answer (B)

NeoNguyen1989 · Answer

the argument contains reasoning and the facts, defined by the occultists. The question stem is only concerned with the reasoning so we don't need to review the facts. The reasoning is that since astrology contains scientific components, it's a science. This mistake is the fallacy of composition, just because a thing has components that are  , such thing is  . B correctly describe this mistake.

Aishyk97 · Answer

(B) Logical Flaw
Read carefully—sometimes the author makes a subtle shift in terms that takes the whole argument off track.

The occultist’s conclusion comes right up front. In case anyone was wondering, it’s been settled: astrology is both an art and a science. The occultist then goes on to explain why: astrology has artistic and scientific components. Might it be possible that something can contain scientific components without being a science (or artistic components without being an art)? This is a possibility that the occultist definitely overlooks. Instead, he makes the logical leap from evidence that astrology has some scientific components to a conclusion that astrology is a science. (B) correctly sums up this unwarranted logical leap.

(A) and (E) broaden the scope far too much. The occultist doesn’t presume that any science must involve complicated mathematics. He just cites complicated math as one of the scientific components of astrology. Similarly, there is no presumption that any art must include the synthesis of multiple factors and symbols; that’s just what makes astrology an art.

(C) The occultist does say that astrology is both an art and a science, but he never rules out the possibility that astrology includes components that aren’t artistic or scientific.
 
(D) gets the occultist’s reasoning backwards. He
starts from the premise that math and astronomy are scientific in order to conclude that astrology is. He doesn’t conclude that they are scientific based on their use in astrology.

Gemmie · Answer

(A) Presumes, without providing justification, that any science must involve complicated mathematics 
This choice criticizes the assumption that science must involve complicated mathematics. However, the occultist does not make this assumption. The argument only mentions that astrology involves complicated mathematics as a part of creating an astrological chart, not that all sciences must involve complicated mathematics.

(B) Incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components.  
The occultist argues that because astrology uses scientific elements (complicated mathematics and astronomical knowledge), astrology itself should be considered a science.
This is a flawed inference because just having some scientific elements does not make the entire practice a science.

(C) Denies the possibility that astrology involves components that are neither artistic nor scientific 
The occultist does not explicitly deny this possibility. The argument simply claims that astrology is both an art and a science, without addressing whether there are other components. This criticism doesn't directly address the main reasoning flaw in the argument.

(D) Incorrectly infers that astronomical knowledge is scientific merely from the fact that such knowledge is needed to create an astrological chart 
The occultist does not infer that astronomical knowledge is scientific  just  because it is used in astrology. Instead, the argument assumes that astronomical knowledge is already considered scientific (which is generally accepted, as astronomy is a recognized science).
The argument uses this accepted premise to claim that astrology involves scientific elements.
The key issue is whether the presence of scientific components (like astronomy) is enough to classify the entire practice of astrology as a science

(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that any art must involve the synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols 
The argument does describe astrology as an art due to the synthesis of many factors and symbols, but it does not claim that all arts must involve this synthesis. The focus of the argument is more on justifying astrology's classification as both an art and a science, rather than defining what constitutes an art in general.

Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily

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

Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily

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