by Mab6q Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:07 pm
This question was tough, not because it was hard to identify the argument core but because E states the flaw in such a vague, ambiguous manner. Here's my breakdown:
Conclusion: the space station should not be built.
Intermediate conclusion: the US space station does not conform to the proper way to plan a S project.
Support 1; the proper way to plan a S project is first to decide a goal then to plan the best way to accomplish it.
Support 2: When the cold war ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly crafted on the project, that of conducting limited gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way.
This is obviously a terrible argument. The big gap is that the author assumes that because a S project is not planned the proper way, it should not be built.
A. That would be a source argument, we do not have that here.
B. That would be circular reasoning, where the support and conclusion are the same thing. Not the case here.
C. This could be tempting if we read into it too much. However, we can't escape the fact that the author does not fault planners for not foreseeing the end of the Cold War, but that the project simply should not be built.
D. another common incorrect answer choice on flaw questions, there is not internal contradiction.
E. Admittedly this was very hard for me to understand the first time i read it. E is basically saying that the author concludes that the project should not be built because of original purpose being lost, when in fact all we are given is evidence to show that the original plan was lost ( the short coming).
"Just keep swimming"