Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain eno

Question

Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain enough meteoroids and other cosmic debris to have caused the extensive cratering on the far side of the moon. My opponents have repeatedly failed to demonstrate the falsity of this thesis. Their evidence is simply inconclusive; thus they should admit that my thesis is correct. #

The reasoning in the astronomer’s argument is flawed because this argument

(A) criticizes the astronomer’s opponents rather than their arguments

(B) infers the truth of the astronomer’s thesis from the mere claim that it has not been proven false

(C) ignores the possibility that alternative explanations may exist for the cratering

(D) illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the meaning of “extensive cratering”

(E) improperly draws an inference about a cause from premises about its effects

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This problem features an Evidence error. In this problem, the astronomer falls into the second error from the Errors in the Use of Evidence section, where “Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is true.” Answer choice (B) describes this mistake. The astronomer’s argument is structured as follows:

Premise: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain enough meteoroids and other cosmic debris to have caused the extensive cratering on the far side of the moon.
Premise: My opponents have repeatedly failed to demonstrate the falsity of this thesis. Their evidence is simply inconclusive.
Conclusion: They   should admit that my thesis is correct.

Answer choice (A): The argument in the stimulus does not include a Source attack. There is a difference between stating that an opponent’s argument is wrong (which is legitimate) and attacking the character of that opponent (a Source flaw). Always look to see if the author attacks the person or the position; a legitimate argument can sometimes appear questionable if the author uses weighted language such as, “My opponents are deluded in believing that my thesis is incorrect.” Although that phrasing sounds like a personal attack, it is just a very strong way of stating that the author’s opponents are incorrect, and it is not a Source attack.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer.

Answer choice (C): The astronomer’s thesis asserts that meteoroids and other cosmic debris are not the cause of the cratering on the far side of the moon. By definition, therefore, the astronomer allows for alternate explanations of the cratering.

Answer choice (D): There is no presumption in the argument similar to the one described in this answer.

Answer choice (E): This answer describes the Uncertain Use of a Term, but the argument does not use “meteoroids” in an inconsistent way.

sudarshan22 · Answer

B it is.

(B) infers the truth of the astronomer’s thesis from the mere claim that it has not been proven false -->  The loophole  : Just because it has not been proved false need not necessarily mean that his opponents should succumb to the author's posit.
Hence, Correct.

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

The answer is (B).

This is a classic question to solve using the  LOGICAL  approach, since it is all about logical inference. 
The argument claims that since something has not been proven false, it must be correct. 
This is a logical  fallacy  > just as failing to prove something does not meant that thing is necessarily false (it may be true, but we just don't have enough information to prove it), failing to prove that something is wrong does  not  mean that that thing is true. (maybe it's completely wrong, but we just don't have enough information to know either way).  the argument is wrong because it (B) infers the truth of the astronomer’s thesis from the mere claim that it has not been proven false

CRACKGMATNUT · Answer

Even though Option B would be rationally incorrect, especially in the modern scientific deduction theory in which rather than proving a theory and accepting it, scientist formulate a theory ,and other scientist try to disapprove it-a failure to do so proves the theory correct and accepted, in the capacity of GMAT CR, this option is justified.

A lack of evidence in disproving the notion cannot be the basis of proving that as accepted theory.

A lack of evidence in disproving the notion cannot be the basis of proving that as accepted theory.

Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain eno

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

Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar system does not contain eno

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