Q17 - The question whether intelligent

[ChaimL393]

Stimulus

This stimulus is made up of two distinct yet connected arguments.

Argument 1:
We are unsure how different from us something might be and still be included under the category of “intelligent life.” Therefore, the question -- 'Is there intelligent life anywhere in the universe other than Earth?' -- is not precise.

Argument 2:
Unless we leave our definitions of "intelligent life" open to new and previously unimagined possibilities, we probably will not discover and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Therefore, we can't simply decide to make our definition of "intelligent life" more precise.

How do these arguments connect? "Argument 1" establishes that a certain question, call it Q, is imprecise, while "Argument 2" establishes that a certain course intended to make Q more precise is self-defeating and hence not advisable.

Question Stem

If the stimulus is an objection to an antecedent proposition, we are asked, how does the stimulus challenge that antecedent proposition? This is a kind of method of reasoning question, with a twist. We need to infer the claim being opposed simply on the basis of the response to the claim. If I were making a claim and the stimulus was a rebuttal of that claim, then what is it that I am claiming? I am claiming that the search for intelligent life in the universe is hindered by lack of a precise definition of the term "intelligent life." My solution is to make the term more precise. How is the stimulus challenging my claims? By objecting to my solution on the grounds that unless we leave our definition of "intelligent life" open to new and previously unimagined possibilities, we probably will not discover and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. So, we want to look out for an answer choice that describes this objection.

(A) The stimulus does not attempt to show that my solution is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, only that it is self-defeating.
(B) I (the imaginary adversary) proposed no specific definition of “intelligent life,” nor does the stimulus provide any examples of things that don't fit some particular definition.
(C) The stimulus never claims that “intelligent life” can't be properly defined.
(D) Yes! The stimulus is arguing that if my solution is acted upon, it would be self-defeating, given my aim of searching for intelligent life.
(E) The stimulus does not mention any claim as being undermined by available evidence. Rather, the kind of evidence described in the stimulus is future observations, which by definition are not currently available.

[jordanjohnsonjr]

This appears to be an analysis of the answer choices for Q18, not Q17.

The correct answer for Q17 is (C).