#16 - Taylor: Researchers at a local university claim that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Question #16: Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (D).

Taylor argues that mathematically precise claims are suspect, because they can never be established by science. Sandra concedes that precision is unobtainable in many areas of life, but argues that it's commonplace in others. She concludes that results should not be doubted merely because they are precise.

The disagreement can be represented using conditional reasoning: for Taylor, all precise claims are suspect:

• Taylor: Precise Suspect

Sandra attacks the necessary condition of this claim, holding that a claim can be precise without being necessarily suspect. Their disagreement, then, is over whether precise claims are necessarily suspect.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because Sandra does not address the specific claim that Taylor argues is suspect. For all we know, they may both disagree with it.

Answer choice (B) is essentially a restatement of answer choice (A). Because they both mean the same thing, we can eliminate both from consideration. After all, the correct answer choice must be unique.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect for the same reason as answer choices (A) and (B) are incorrect: Sandra does not address the study of verbal and nonverbal communication.

Answer choice (D) is the correct answer choice, as it agrees with our prephrase: the issue is whether mathematically precise results are inherently suspect. Taylor believes that they are, and will therefore disagree with answer choice (D). Sandra, meanwhile, believes that they are not inherently suspect, and so will agree with answer choice (D). This answer choice passes the Agree/Disagree Test, and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect, because "suspect" does not mean "false"; it means "unreliable" or "inconclusive." Neither speaker claims that inherently suspect claims are false.

[Haleyeastham]

16. Regarding the argument of Sandra vs Taylor- not understanding what the answer means by "that are not inherently suspect"?


Thanks!

[jeff.wren]

Hi Haley,

Answer choice (D) of question 16 basically means that it is possible in some sciences to have precise results (rather than say just a ballpark estimate or a rough range of values) and that those precise values shouldn't be immediately suspected as wrong or false simply because they are so precise.

This is the correct answer because Sandra would agree with this statement (her second sentence says basically the same thing) while Taylor would disagree ("this claim, like all such mathematically precise claims, is suspect").

For Taylor, the fact that the percentage is so precise (exactly 61%) makes the information automatically questionable.

Hope this helps,
Jeff

[KCOURSEY28]

Hello,

Is Sandra's statement a set of facts or an argument? I thought she was making an argument but I saw on another explanation video that Sandra's statement is just a set of facts. I thought the conclusion of her argument (if it is one) is "many scientific disciplines obtain extremely precise results, which should not be doubted merely because of their position." Moreover, I thought the first sentence was a set of facts doubled as a premise. Could someone please explain whether or not Sandra's statement is an argument? If not, why not? Thank you.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Kcoursey,

I guess I'd throw this one back at you just a little bit. Does it really matter? After all, you can take issue with a claim someone else has made without necessarily spinning out an entire argument. All it takes is your factual statement of the opposite of what someone else says. So, since the focus of the question is on finding the point at issue, whether or not Sandra makes an argument doesn't have as much effect on our ability to find the correct answer (especially in this case, where the point at issue is encompassed entirely in Sandra's last claim).

Still, though, the best read of Sandra's statements is the one that you've given it (and that the explanation here has given it). They constitute an argument! The conclusion is actually the second half of the second sentence: that the extremely precise results obtained by many scientific disciplines should not be doubted just because of their precision. Why does Sandra think that precision alone is not sufficient to doubt them? Because of how commonplace precision is (including in these many scientific disciplines). That premise/conclusion (evidence supporting opinion) structure of the statements is why we ought to read them as an argument.

I hope this helps!