Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she

Question

Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she saw a flying saucer the other night. But since she is a sociologist rather than a physicist, she cannot possibly be acquainted with the most recent writings of our finest scientists that tend to discount such sightings, so we can conclude that her report is unreliable.

Which of the following would be the most appropriate criticism of the author's analysis?

A) The author makes an irrelevant attack on Professor Branch's credentials.

B) The author may not be a physicist, and may therefore not be acquainted with the writings cited.

C) Even the US Air Force cannot explain all of the sightings of UFOs which are reported to it each year.

D) A sociologist is sufficiently well educated to read and understand scientific literature in a field other than her own.

E) It is impossible to get complete agreement on matters such as the possibility of life on other planets.

RaghavSingla · Answer

Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she saw a flying saucer the other night. But since she is a sociologist rather than a physicist, she cannot possibly be acquainted with the most recent writings of our finest scientists that tend to discount such sightings, so we can conclude that her report is unreliable.

Which of the following would be the most appropriate criticism of the author's analysis?

The argument concluded that Branch's report is unreliable since the finest physicist have recently discounted such sightings through their recent writings. Any point that would affect the claim that recent writings of the finest scientists could be wrong should be the answer i.e. the most valid criticism.

A) The author makes an irrelevant attack on Professor Branch's credentials. -->  No irrelevant claims are made. She's chair of sociology dept, there's nothing to refute that.  
B) The author may not be a physicist, and may therefore not be acquainted with the writings cited. --->  irrelevant. 
C) Even the US Air Force cannot explain all of the sightings of UFOs which are reported to it each year. ---->  irrelevant. 
D) A sociologist is sufficiently well educated to read and understand scientific literature in a field other than her own. --->  While true, but it could be possible that despite being sufficiently educated enough, professor branch was still not acquainted with most 'recent' writings. Hence, not a weakener. 
E) It is impossible to get complete agreement on matters such as the possibility of life on other planets. --->  Should be correct. Since, the basis of conclusion is that the finest scientists tend to discount such sightings, implying that UFO's don't exist, if scientists themselves were wrong, then professor brach's report could be reliable.

IMHO correct answer should be  E .

Please give kudos if this helps!

LXVE · Answer

Hmmm...I am not sure I agree with Raghav's analysis for answer choice E. The prompt says scientists TEND to disagree, so even if there was some debate among scientists as to whether aliens exist or not, the consensus is thst flying saucers are not real. We would also have to assume ALL flying saucers are piloted by alien life. I think it makes no difference whether COMPLETE agreement can be reached, as that is very extreme- is there anything in existence that is completely 100% agreed upon? People go into crazy debates over the color of a dress. Plus, even if alien life was debatable, physicists could still write conclusive articles showing that there's no way for alien life to reach us. I would lean towards answer choice A. First of all, he claims she is not a physicist, but these writings are written by scientists, that's quite a jump. The attack on Branch for being a sociologist therefore seems pretty irrelevant. What does her occupational difference from physicists have to do with familiarity with scientific publications?

Sent from my SM-G928T using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Sent from my SM-G928T using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

sovlin3740 · Answer

I think that Option D seems to narrow the scope since it focuses only on the sociologists. Option A on the other hand captures the general tone of the flaw of the argument.

LogicGuru1 · Answer

Ahaha! after a long time I see a pure fallacy based question. Feeling very happy since it gives me a chance to brush off my philosophy knowledge !!

The right answer is A The fallacy in question is A fallacy of relevance more properly known into philosophical world as "Ad-hominem abusive" {Latin for attack the person} This fallacy is categorised by the fact the attacker does not address the argument at all but rather attacks the characters, knowledge, credential of the other person. There is no sense in this fallacy. The attacker generally says things to make the other person look either stupid, or characterless or dumb or not enough qualified. This is what is happening in this argument. Rather than addressing the issue at hand of UFO's, author is maligning Prof. Branch as just a sociologist who are not as good or intelligent as physicist. He further degrades her by saying she cannot possibly know about recent physics journals which confirms UFO doesnt exist. In short he is just making the Professor look like some dumb hippy who is ignorant of science . A) The author makes an irrelevant attack on Professor Branch's credentials. THUS A IS THE CORRECT ANSWER

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

Option B is out of scope because we are not discussing about authors credentials and so on..
Option C is clrealy out of scope because what does US Air Force has to do anything with this discussion.
E is also out becuase life on other planet and UFO may be different.(what if aliens all live on an airship or something like that... lol)

Main argument between A and D.Option D says that the sociologist can read the research papers and so on...well it does not say that if anyone can then one must have read it.. meaning that she may be able to comprehend the report but what on earth would make her read the report on the first place and also its out of her scope of intrest.. so for that reason D can be eliminated. A is the best option(even though it does not follow most GMAT elimination strategies used... but stil it is a winner) 
 Option A is correct

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

In this story, the identity of the person who reports the incident is irrelevant. So long as it is not someone with a special infirmity (very poor eyesight, for example) or poor credibility (an inveterate liar), the person is quite capable of reporting what she saw—or what she thought she saw. The most serious weakness of the analysis presented is that it attacks Professor Branch’s credentials.

To be sure, one might want to question the accuracy of the report: At what time did it occur? What were the lighting conditions? Had the observer been drinking or smoking? But these can be asked independently of attacking the qualifications of the source. Thus,  (D)  must be wrong, for special credentials are just not needed in this case, so the wrong way to defend Professor Branch is to defend those.

By the same token, it makes no sense to defend Branch by launching a counter-ad hominem attack on her attacker, so  (B)  is incorrect.  (C) and (E)  may or may not be true, but they are surely irrelevant to the question of whether this particular sighting is to be trusted.

The correct answer is (A).

nadateztaker077 · Answer

A is correct. It's an irrelevant attack because we are assuming that you must be credentialed as a Physicist in order to read those materials. We are also singling physicist as the governing voice on UFO's. Who's to say it's not planetary astronomers.

Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she

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

Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she

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