LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3806
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q13.
This is a FLAW question. We need to find the argument core and argue with / react to it.
The argument core is this:
BECAUSE we sent messages to nearby stars and haven't received any messages back from aliens yet
WE CAN CONCLUDE there aren't any aliens in the nearby stars
================
How would we, as the other lawyer in the room, object to that argument?
We could say, "Maybe they sent a message back, but it just hasn't arrived yet (since it takes a long time for messages to travel through space's great distances)
We could say, "Maybe they received our message and just chose to not message back (we looked annoying, so they thought 'No thanks'."
================
(A) That is not a concern with the logic. We understand well enough what broad sense of messages is being used.
(B) True! And this is one of the 10 Famous Flaws (we call it Unproven vs. Untrue). When you see an answer choice say "the author inferred A from the claim that B", you should check whether A matches the conclusion and B matches the evidence.
Indeed, the conclusion is that "there is no E.T. in nearby stars", and the evidence is "we have yet to receive messages from E.T. in nearby stars".
(C) Nothing in this argument is discussing how important it would be to find that there are aliens. The conversation is only talking about whether aliens do/don't exist in nearby star systems.
In order to assess whether aliens do/don't exist in nearby star systems, we would never NEED to assess whether that's an important or unimportant possibility.
I can assess whether this new drug cures cancer.
I can assess whether my daughter finished her cereal.
The fact that the possibility of the former is important and the latter is totally insignificant has nothing to do with the process of assessing whether each idea is true.
(D) The better the messages were that we sent, the more it helps this author's conviction that "Since aliens haven't responded to our (awesome) messages, they must not exist."
(E) He directly confronts that possibility, since the conclusion essentially agrees with that.
The argument core is this:
BECAUSE we sent messages to nearby stars and haven't received any messages back from aliens yet
WE CAN CONCLUDE there aren't any aliens in the nearby stars
================
How would we, as the other lawyer in the room, object to that argument?
We could say, "Maybe they sent a message back, but it just hasn't arrived yet (since it takes a long time for messages to travel through space's great distances)
We could say, "Maybe they received our message and just chose to not message back (we looked annoying, so they thought 'No thanks'."
================
(A) That is not a concern with the logic. We understand well enough what broad sense of messages is being used.
(B) True! And this is one of the 10 Famous Flaws (we call it Unproven vs. Untrue). When you see an answer choice say "the author inferred A from the claim that B", you should check whether A matches the conclusion and B matches the evidence.
Indeed, the conclusion is that "there is no E.T. in nearby stars", and the evidence is "we have yet to receive messages from E.T. in nearby stars".
(C) Nothing in this argument is discussing how important it would be to find that there are aliens. The conversation is only talking about whether aliens do/don't exist in nearby star systems.
In order to assess whether aliens do/don't exist in nearby star systems, we would never NEED to assess whether that's an important or unimportant possibility.
I can assess whether this new drug cures cancer.
I can assess whether my daughter finished her cereal.
The fact that the possibility of the former is important and the latter is totally insignificant has nothing to do with the process of assessing whether each idea is true.
(D) The better the messages were that we sent, the more it helps this author's conviction that "Since aliens haven't responded to our (awesome) messages, they must not exist."
(E) He directly confronts that possibility, since the conclusion essentially agrees with that.
2 posts Page 1 of 1