Q2 - Despite the best efforts

[eagerlawstudent]

This is probably one of the easier ones...but I just don't see it..

[cyruswhittaker]

I believe this is an "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy.

In abstract form:

If no evidence for X, then not X.

Lack of evidence by itself does not justify concluding that there is no intelligent life whatsoever. Or, in other words, lack of evidence by itself does not provide direct evidence against the claim. This is best expressed by (B).

Incorrect Choices:

(A): The argument makes no restriction to "living beings," so this is not a flaw.

(C): The passage mentions lack of evidence, but there is no explicit "disagreement" that is used as the basis for interpretation. This seems like an answer that could be chosen if moving too hastily.

(D): The argument uses the lack of evidence as justification for its conclusion, but the argument does not rely on any such inference utilizing the term "life" in an ambiguous manner.

(E): Analogy?? There was no analogy presented in the argument.

[lolitatrekkie]

I picked B through process of elimination since none of the other answer choices applied to the flawed reasoning in this question. I get that the flaw was using the lack of evidence to prove that something doesn't exist but the wording of answer choice B confused me.

Can someone help explain the wording of answer choice B and where is the hypothesis in this question?


Thanks!