Q15 - The typological theory of species

[missbernadette]

I really don't even know where to start with this question (I'm horrible with flaw questions)....help, please?

[cyruswhittaker]

Here are my thoughts on this question:

The argument says that typological theory does not account for "sibling species," which ARE considered seperate species by the mainstream biological theory.

Then, the argument says that since the typological theory doesn't classify sibling species as seperate species, it is an "unacceptable" theory.

However, in the argument, there's no determination that the mainstream theory is actually a valid theory. For example, one might also argue that the mainstream theory is unacceptable since it DOES consider sibling species as seperate species.

So, the argument is presupposing (assuming) that the mainstream theory is a valid theory. If the mainstream theory wasn't a valid theory, then the argument would no longer follow.

I find this question interesting because it shows the inter-relationships between question types in the arguments section. By revolving around an assumption, it could easily have turned into a weakening question (where we attack the assumption), strengthen question (where we make the assumption explicit), a necessary assumption question (where we indicate that a necessary condition MUST be satisfied for the argument to be valid), and even a sufficient assumption question (where through modification, the assumption is made explicit to fill a "gap" in reasoning, hence allowing the conclusion to follow), inference question (if the statements in the argument ARE true and the conclusion is valid, what must follow).

Anyway I hope this helps.

[noah]

Cyrus, you rock. That's just it. Analogously: Jon Stewart should not be believed, because Glenn Beck states that Stewart says things of doubtful truthiness.

I think the most tempting wrong answer here is (D). The issue is that citing a single counterexample to an absolute rule is an acceptable way to argue -- it's not a flaw!

- A side note to Cyrus: You're identifying the core, which, as you mention, plays out in many different ways in all the Assumption Family questions. What we usually do to drive home this issue in our explanations is that we try to relate each incorrect answer choice to that core).

Since there's a lot of discussion on this question, let me put up a full explanation:

The conclusion of the argument is that the typological theory is unacceptable. Why? Because it categorizes "sibling species" as the same species but mainstream theory says they are separate.

What's the gap? It's that perhaps mainstream theory is wrong! So, as (C) states, the argument assumes that mainstream theory is correct.

(A) is wrong since you don't have to evaluate every aspect of a theory to conclude it's unacceptable. One bad part can ruin it!

(B) seems to show up in every flaw question! However, there's no real conditional statements made in this argument.

(D) is super tempting since the author does use one example to show the theory is false. However, why is that a flaw? If Tim says that "all women are prone to fainting spells," can't I disprove that with one counterexample?

(E) is irrelevant to the core of the argument.

[farhadshekib]

Cyrus, you rock. That's just it. Analogously: Jon Stewart should not be believed, because Glenn Beck states that Stewart says things of doubtful truthiness.

I think the most tempting wrong answer here is (D). The issue is that the mistake mentioned can not be classified as a single fact. It's a general issue, not a single fact.

- A side note to Cyrus: You're identifying the core, which, as you mention, plays out in many different ways in all the Assumption Family questions. What we usually do to drive home this issue in our explanations is that we try to relate each incorrect answer choice to that core).

My problem with answer choice (C) is that it calls the mainstream theory an "opposing theory".

The stimulus tells us that the typological theory does not count "sibling species" as separate species, while the mainstream theory does.

So, we know that they differ in this aspect. However, does this mean that they are "opposing theories"?

As for (D), I don't understand why it is wrong. Can't the "single fact" refer to the notion that the "typological theory does not count sibling species"?

Please elaborate on the single fact vs general issue distinction here.

Thanks!

[chike_eze]

I chose (D) during full PT and review. Gosh!

(D) would be correct if it stated:

"The argument takes evidence that is incompatible with a theory as enough to show that theory to be false"

Would this work... or does it still need more work? I accept that (C) is correct, but I want to compare a "correct" version of (D) with the "wrong" one.

Feedback Please

[geverett]

I think we can infer that these are opposing theories based on the fact that the typological theory classified solely on the basis of plumage color, adult size, etc. While the mainstream theory of species classification accounts for whether or not a species can interbreed.

Both of these theories are classification theories so any difference in how they go about classification is going to be a difference of core tenets of the theories. Hence, why they can be inferred to be opposing theories.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi Noah,
I chose D for this one as well (indeed it was tempting!) but now that I look at it, I don't like D so much because of the word "false." The argument doesn't say that the THEORY as a whole is "false", just that it is "unacceptable." I don't see a problem with "single fact" portion of the answer since I feel like the "sibling species are separate species" is the fact in question. Does this make sense? What are your thoughts? I just wanted to clarify why (D) was wrong because I can see why C is right, and I do like C better.

[geverett]

Would love to hear more on this actually.

If D were right would it not then prove conclusively that the topological theory is incorrect? Reason being if there is a fact that is incompatible with a theory then the theory is false. yes? no?

[americano1990]

Whether its a single fact, evidence, claim or wtev, using an exception to discredit a theory is not a FLAW in reasoning.

Theory by definition is something that is to hold in all circumstances. For instance, mathematical theories that you learn in high school. They are taught under the assumption that they are true. If you are smart enough to give an exception and thereby disprove it, you are gna get the nobel prize.

anyways (D) by all means is what the author does, but its not a FLAW per se so thats why its not the correct answer.

[noah]

Americano nailed it.

[lhermary]

Americano nailed it.

Since there's a lot of discussion on this question, let me put up a full explanation:

The conclusion of the argument is that the typological theory is unacceptable. Why? Because it categorizes "sibling species" as the same species but mainstream theory says they are separate.

What's the gap? It's that perhaps mainstream theory is wrong! So, as (C) states, the argument assumes that mainstream theory is correct.

(A) is wrong since you don't have to evaluate every aspect of a theory to conclude it's unacceptable. One bad part can ruin it!

(B) seems to show up in every flaw question! However, there's no real conditional statements made in this argument.

(D) is super tempting since the author does use one example to show the theory is false. However, why is that a flaw? If Tim says that "all women are prone to fainting spells," can't I disprove that with one counterexample?

(E) is irrelevant to the core of the argument.

I don't get your reasoning on why D is wrong....

Can you please go into more detail?

I've been staring at this question for 10 minutes and still can't see why D is wrong....

[noah]

I don't get your reasoning on why D is wrong....

Can you please go into more detail?

I've been staring at this question for 10 minutes and still can't see why D is wrong....

Sure!

Tim has a theory: all frogs are green.. But, this is unacceptable, because there is a yellow frog in my yard.

Is my argument flawed? No. (unless you get into what does "unacceptable" mean, which is a tenuous line of thinking)

If someone says an absolute rule, if you can come up with a counterexample, you've dis-proven that rule.

So, while (D) does say something that happens in the argument, there's no reason to call it a flaw. Similarly, you couldn't say that it's a flaw that I used one frog to disprove Tim's theory.

Make sense now?

[shirando21]

C- the argument presupposes the truth of an opposing theory-is this one a circular reasoning?

[Kurst]

C- the argument presupposes the truth of an opposing theory-is this one a circular reasoning?

It's similar-feeling, but not the same.

There's no premise stating that the typological theory is true, thus it's an assumption. Circular reasoning, at it's heart, is a premise restated as a conclusion.

[shirando21]

C- the argument presupposes the truth of an opposing theory-is this one a circular reasoning?

It's similar-feeling, but not the same.

There's no premise stating that the typological theory is true, thus it's an assumption. Circular reasoning, at it's heart, is a premise restated as a conclusion.

Thanks.

[vu.anthony]

Could D be considered incorrect because it says the theory is to be false whereas the argument states that the theory is unacceptable?

[cserge18]

(D) is another Distortion. First, the author doesn’t suggest that the entire theory is false, just simply unacceptable. Additionally, he doesn’t show a fact that is incompatible with the typological theory. He introduces a contradictory classification from another theory, which, by definition, is not fact.

[perad-16]

Just to add, because I also chose D, but now see why it is wrong. I think D is wrong for a few reasons: first, as I realized from reading this thread, pointing out one flaw in a theory to prove it "unacceptable" is not flawed reasoning, at least not in this basic context; secondly how can a "fact," be "incompatible" with this theory? The fact itself is just something unconsidered by the typological theory, which is considered by the mainstream theory. In other words, sibling species classifications on the basis of interbreeding is incompatible with typological but not the fact that they can interbreed themselves. To say that it is incompatible would be presupposing its truth. C is correct, because as stated, it assumes that mainstream is correct in its classification.

[kroninger]

(D) is another Distortion. First, the author doesn’t suggest that the entire theory is false, just simply unacceptable. Additionally, he doesn’t show a fact that is incompatible with the typological theory. He introduces a contradictory classification from another theory, which, by definition, is not fact.

I'm having trouble understanding why, functionally, unacceptable =/= false, especially in the context of this question.

[fadams]

Let's say there are two species of animals:
Dogs versus Wolves (according to google, they aren't the same species... but don't ask me why.)
Let's say they cannot interbreed.
They are also physically the same.

Theory T - categorize with physical features only
With T, the result is dog and wolves are indeed the same.

Theory M - ??
With M, the result is dogs and wolves are separate species.

So far, we know what T uses for its categorization. We don't really know what M use yet.
The conclusion then says
Since T doesn't count dog and wolves as separate, it is unacceptable.

Ah! So the author, without warrant, presumes that what M does is more acceptable than what T does. That is categorizing beyond physical features. This is actually an assumption that has to be true for the conclusion to be true.
If the author doesn't think that what M does is better than what T does, then maybe T can be acceptable after all!
But that's the problem! This is an unwarranted assumption. It could entirely be true, since it is never explicitly said, that M is not acceptable in some other way. We just don't know.

A. the author argues that T not doing something is sufficient ground for it to be unacceptable. So he doesn't have to consider all aspects at all.

B. we don't know if the physical aspect is a necessary or sufficient aspect of species distinction

D. be careful. Saying it is unacceptable does not mean that it is false. One is subjective, the other one is objective. Think about it this way:
People use to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.
But it is factually proven now that earth revolves around the sun!

Now I ask you: what did those people believe?
Well they believed sun revolved around the earth! The fact that we discovered something different doesn't change the fact that they believed what they believed even though the content/substance of that belief is factually incorrect.